_ THE ^ 

Initiative 



AND 



RgFOUENDlM 



THIS BOOK TELLS YOU 
WHAT YOU OUGHT TO KNOW 

BY 

JAMES BOYLE 

Private Secretary of Governor Wm. McKinley; 
Former Consul of U. S. to Liverpool, Eng. 

Author of "Organized Labor and Court Decisions," 
'The New Socialism/' "What is Socialism?" (la the Press.) 



PRICE 30 CENTS 

BY MAIL 35 CENTS (Post-office Order or Stamps) 

A. H. SMYTHE 

43 SOUTH HIGH ST., COLUMBUS. OHIO 



THE 



INITIATIVE AND 
REFERENDUM: 



ITS 



FOLLY, FALLACIES, AND FAILURE 



BY 



JAMES BOYLE 

h 

Private Secretary of Governor McKinley ; 

Former Consul of the United States at Liverpool, England. 

Author of "Organized Lahor and Court Decisions," 

"The New Socialism," etc. 



A. H. SMYTHE 

43 SOUTH HIGH STREET, COLUMBUS, OHIO 



^ 



<& A 



COPYRIGHT, 1912 
BY JAMES BOYLE 



)CLA30o2G3^ 



Contents. 



PAGE 

WHAT SOME WISE MEN HAVE SAID 5 

THE PROPOSITION STATED 7 

The Propulsive Force 7 

The Initiative 8 

The Referendum 10 

An Important Distinction 11 

THE CASE AGAINST THE INITIATIVE AND REFER- 
ENDUM 15 

Revolutionary 15 

Reactionary 19 

The Undemocratic Initiative 20 

Referendum : Theory vs. Practice 23 

Destructive to Representative Government 25 

Labor and the I. & R 28 

Means Minority Rule 32 

"Serves the Majority Right !" 39 

The Cities Will Dominate 40 

The Gate- Way to Socialism 42 

"The Madness of Democracy" 44 

"Taxation Without Representation " 45 

Means Crude Legislation 47 

The Joseph Fels Fund Commission 49 

"Mum's the Word !" 51 

Money Galore 54 

The Standard American Authority 57 

Hon. James Bryce on Direct Legislation 63 

Woodrow Wilson and the I. & R 66 

Two Great Fallacies 68 

SWITZERLAND'S EXPERIENCE 70 

"Circumstances Alter Cases" 70 

Prof. Oberholtzer's Warning 71 

Why Switzerland Adopted the I. & R 72 

3 



4 Contents. 

SWITZERLAND'S EXPERIENCE— Concluded. page 

Prof. Lowell's Adverse Opinion 74 

How Switzerland Differs From the U. S 75 

Minister Swenson Points Out Drawbacks 77 

Compulsory Voting- in Switzerland 78 

What a Belgian Economist Says 83 

The Initiative a Failure 8ti 

Ex-President Droz Condemns the Initiative 88 

THE MUDDLE IN OREGON 90 

A Warning to Other States 90 

Single Taxers Back of it 92 

State University Jeopardised 96 

Crude and Conflicting Laws 97 

Constitutional Muddle 98 

SOUTH DAKOTA 104 

The Original Initiative State 104 

What the Governor Says 105 

A FEW CLOSING W r ORDS 107 

APPENDIX 109 

Daniel Webster on ''Constant Clamorers" 109 

An Ancient Example 110 

The "Fathers" Knew Their Business Ill 

"Pure" vs. "Representative" Democracy 112 

"A Republican Form of Government" 114 

"The Greatest Tragedy of Christendom" 115 

Legislative "Cure-alls" 117 

"Utterly and Hopelessly Undemocratic" 118 

Gov. O'Neal, of Alabama, on the I. & R 120 



What Some Wise Men 
Have Said. 



GLADSTONE on the American Constitution: — 

"The American Constitution is the 
greatest work struck off at a given time 
by the brain and purpose of man." 

THOMAS JEFFERSON on Representative Government: — 

(Speaking of the "Rights of Man") :— 
"Modern times have the signal advan- 
tage too, of having discovered the 
ONLY DEVICE by which these rights 
can be secured, to-wit:— government by 
the people, acting not in person, but 
by REPRESENTATIVES chosen by 
themselves." 

DANIEL WEBSTER on Chronic Clamorers: — 

"There are persons who constantly 
clamor. * * * They carry on a mad 
hostility against all established institu- 
tions." 

WOODROW WILSON on the Initiative and Referendum: — 

A Government "can no more make 
laws through its voters than it can 
make laws through its newspapers. 
* * * What I mean to say is that pop- 
ular INITIATIVE IS AN INCON- 
CEIVABLE THING!" 

5 



Rainbow Chasing! 



It is the old contest between idealism and stubborn, matter- 
of-fact reality. It is the story of the philosopher's stone over 
again — the dream of transmuting all the metals into gold — the 
hunt for the master key that will open all locks, however different 
in size and shape — the problem of fitting square pegs into round 
holes — the puzzle of how to eat one's cake and have it — the search 
for the chimera of perpetual motion — the quest for the mythical 
pot of gold at the foot of the rainbow — and all the other impos- 
sible undertakings which have vexed men's souls and turned their 
brains and filled the lunatic asylums since mankind was divided 
into those who see facts and those who see visions. 

[Speech of Hon. George Sutherland (of Utah) t in the 
U. S. Senate, July 11, 1911, on "Government by 
Ballot/'] 



The Proposition Stated. 

The Initiative and Referendum combined, 
constitute what is called "Direct Legislation/' 

i substitute for or supplementary to our 
present Representative system; and it is the 
modern form of the so-called "Pure Demoera- 

" of the ancients. 

THE PROPULSIVE FORCE. 

The "Progressives" have accepted the 
Initiative and Referendum as one of the cardinal 
articles of their creed:— indeed, many of them 
look upon it as the foundation-stone of their 
Temple of Reform. As will be shown hereafter, 
the propulsive force in the movement comes 
from certain groups of minorities: particularly 
Single Taxers (those who favor the placing of 
all taxation on Land Values, as advocated by 
Henry George). There are "chronic clamor- 
era" (as Daniel Webster calls them), who al- 
ways fall in line with the '"latest thing out" in 
politics, religion, and every "cult," the principal 
feature of which is that it is k " something new." 
But after a while the thing palls on them, and 
thev cast it aside. At the same time, it is but 



8 Initiative and Referendum. 

fair to say that thousands of patriotic citizens 
favor the Initiative and Referendum because 
they have absorbed the belief that Direct Legis- 
lation will remedy the admitted evils of the 
times,— particularly Legislative incompetency 
and venality. But they have not studied the 
matter beneath the surface; had the}^ done so 
they would realize that Direct Legislation is— 
in these clays, and especially for the American 
people— impracticable, revolutionary, and re- 
actionary, *and that it would be followed by a 
train of evils greater than those of which they 
complain ; in fact, they would realize that these 
evils are not primarily or necessarily the fault— 
and generally not the fault at all— of the Rep- 
resentative system, imperfect as that system is, 
like everything else human; and they would 
come to the conclusion that most of these evils 
are the fault of the people themselves in not liv- 
ing up to their Civic obligations. Without en- 
tering into the details of suggested forms and 
variations and modifications of Direct Legisla- 
tion, the following is a fair statement of the 
proposition, in a broad, general way:— 

THE INITIATIVE, 

It is proposed to change the Constitution so 
as to give the right to a certain percentage of 
the voters to originate Amendments, and also to 



i 



Initiative axd Referendum. 9 

originate general State-wide Statutory Laws, by 
petition. 

The proposed percentage of voters required 
in a petition for a Constitutional Amendment is 
variously fixed, — according to the Radicalism or 
Conservatism of the advocate— from 5 to 12 per 
cent of the total number of voters in the State, 
it being generally— but not always— conceded 
that there should be a higher percentage re- 
quired for Constitutional Amendments than for 
Statutory Laws. For an Initiative Bill the per- 
centage named is generally 5, sometimes 8. 

There is generally also a make-believe con- 
ion that an Initiative Bill shall, in the first 
instance, be presented to the Legislature in or- 
der to give that body an opportunity to pass it. 
But neither the Legislature nor anybody else 
is to be allowed to change or amend or correct 
the measure in the slightest— even though it may 
plainly be in conflict with other laws, uncon- 
stitutional or impracticable; and if the Legisla- 
ture does not pass it exactly as presented the 
Secretary of State is to refer it to the people for 
action. It is proper to say that some advocates 
are willing that the Legislature shall be permit- 
ted—as is the case in Switzerland— to offer rec- 
ommendations ; but this concession is opposed by 
the Radicals ; and anyhow, as the same organized 
minority which secured its Initiation are not 



K) Initiative and Referendu 

likely to favor any recommendation which will 
be important, and as that minority will be all 
ready for the campaign as against the unorgan- 
ized majority, the concession does not amount to 
much. 

THE REFERENDUM. 

Under the Referendum, all Constitutional 
Amendments and all Statutory Bills which have 
originated under the Initiative, as above ex- 
plainer, must be referred to the people direct, for 
passage; also, if a certain percentage of voters 
petition that it be done, any Legislative Bill 
must be referred to the people for final passage. 

The percentage of voters required on a Ref- 
erendum petition is variously named at from 5 
to 8 per cent, of the total number of voters. All 
Constitutional Amendments and Statutory Bills 
shall go into passage and become the law of the 
State— or the country at large, as the " reform" 
is intended hi time to become National— if they 
receive A BARE MAJORITY OF VOTES 
CAST THEREON- even though that majority 
should be a DECIDED MINORITY OF ALL 
THE VOTES CAST at that particular election 
—as it always is. 

This last point should be kept carefully in 
mind, as it is one of the foundation principles of 
the Initiative and Referendum. 



Initiative axd Referendum. 11 

"While there are some slight variations, this 
is the prevailing form of the Referendum. It is 
called the OPTIONAL or FACULTATIVE 
Referendum. The extremists demand that ALL 
Bills passed by the Legislature shall be referred 
to the people for final passage, whether peti- 
tioned for or not : this form is called the COM- 
PULSORY Referendum. 

Under the Initiative and Referendum it is 
intended to ABOLISH THE GOVERNOR'S 
VETO. — that is. on all laws passed through the 
Referendum. Whether THE SUPREME 
COURT shall be allowed to pass upon the CON- 
STITUTIONALITY of such Laws is a hard 
nut for the advocates of the Initiative and Ref- 
erendum to crack. 

AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. 

It should be clearly understood that the Ini- 
tiative and Referendum, as now demanded, is 
different entirely in principle from the existing 
system of referring Constitutional Amendments 
to the people for ratification after consideration 
and formulation by a Legislature or a Constitu- 
tional convention: so. also, the proposed system 
of Direct Legislation as to general Statutory 
Laws is very different from the well-known 
principle of "Local Option/' or the reference to 



12 Initiative and Referendum. 

the people— in Municipalities or the State at 
large, as the came may be— of specific, concrete 
propositions involving the issuance of bonds, the 
granting of franchises, etc., or some radical 
change in established policy. In the one case 
there is direct general legislation by the people 
in mass— in theory at least, although experience 
shows that a minority of the voters practically 
always decide the issue ; while in the other case 
there is Conventional or Legislative action, un- 
der the long-established American Representa- 
tive principle, as a condition-precedent. One 
system is absolutely opposed to the theory and 
practice of Representative government— and 
this is particularly so as to the Initiative; the 
other is perfectly- consistent with that theory and 
practice. The plausible advocates of the Initia- 
tive and Referendum conveniently ignore this 
great distinction. 

It is quite evident, therefore, that arguments 
which might apply favorably to what for dis- 
tinction's sake we will call the Representative- 
Referendum practice, do not necessarily— and, 
indeed, they generally do not— apply to Direct 
Legislation under the proposed new Initiative 
and Referendum, for the passage of Constitu- 
tional Amendments and general Statutory Laws. 

It must be confessed that to the average lay 
mind there is some difficulty in grasping the 



Initiative xiND Refeeexdum. 13 

distinction referred to ; vet there is a fundamen- 
tal distinction, subtle though it may appear at 
first. Under our present Representative system, 
Laws are passed by the Legislature, and no other 
power can pass them; while under the Initiative 
and Referendum the people pass Laws by Direct 
action. Yet there is a middle ground ;ard 

to the going into effect of certain Laws under the 
Representative system, as above indicated. 
While the Legislature under our present Con- 
stitution cannot delegate the power to MAKE 
Laws, yet, under the well-known decision of the 
Ohio Supreme Court, rendered by Judge Ranney 
(who was a stanch upholder of the Representa- 
tive system), the Legislature can confer an au- 
thority or discretion as to its execution; but it 
must be kept in mind that the power to pass the 
Law under which that authority or discretion 
may be exercised, remains with the Legislature. 
For instance, the Legislature passed the Local 
Option Laws under which communities can pro- 
hibit the liquor traffic; so, likewise, the Legisla- 
ture can repeal those Laws. 

A failure to take note of the distinction be- 
tween the two forms of direct action by the peo- 
ple, is unquestionably the cause of a vast number 
of patriotic and intelligent citizens thinking that 
they favor the Initiative and Referendum, when 
really they do nothing of the kind. This fact 



14 Initiative and Refekendum. 

was notorious during the recent campaign in 
Ohio when members of the Constitutional Con- 
vention were elected. 



i 



The Case Against the Initiative 
and Referendum. 



"The Case Against the Initiative and Refer- 
endum" is made out first by argument, and sec- 
ondly by giving the results of experience. To the 
reader the writer ventures to hope, in the words 
of Boswell: "I have found you an argument." 
But experience is better, for it is even "the 
teacher of fools;" and to the wise, also, accord- 
ing to Bacon (one of the wisest of men), "By 
far the best proof is experience." 

REVOLUTIONARY. 

In principle and practice the Initiative and 
Referendum is Revolutionary, in that it is op- 
posed to the established Representative system 
of our American Government. Of course it will 
not be disputed that the Constitution of the 
United States provides for the Representative 
system of Legislation in the Federal Govern- 
ment. Neither can it be disputed that the Fath- 
ers deliberately chose this system, after giving 
due consideration to other forms, including Di- 
rect Legislation, as was then being expounded by 
the brilliant but altogether impractical French- 

15 



16 Initiative and Referendum. 

man, Rousseau, who believed that governments 
could not act "but when the people are assem- 
bled.' ' With him Representative Government 
was only an evil ; he opposed the election of Rep- 
resentatives to make laws, but held that Deputies 
should be considered only as Commissioners, 
who should not be qualified to conclude upon 
anything definitely. "No act of theirs, " said 
Rousseau," can be a Law unless it has been rati- 
fied by the people in person; and without that 
ratification nothing is a law." Another erratic 
genius who created a stir at that period was 
Thomas Paine— that " phenomenon" and " dis- 
astrous meteor," as John Adams called hiir. 
Although an Englishman, Paine took a lively 
interest in the establishment of the independence 
of the American colonies. He advocated 
Rousseau's plan of government. At first even 
Benjamin Franklin seems to have been in sym- 
pathy with the Rosseau-Paine system, but, after 
a thorough exchange of opposing views, he 
agreed with the other framers of the Consti- 
tution in favor of the Representative system. 
The very first section of the First Article of 
the Federal Constitution reads: "All legisla- 
tive Powers herein granted shall be vested in 
a Congress of the United States, Avhich shall con- 
sist of a Senate and House of Representatives." 
The late Mr. Justice Harlan, of the IT. S. Su- 



Initiative axd Referendum. 17 

preme Court, in an address delivered in Decem- 
ber, 1907, thus explained the sort of Federal Gov- 
ernment under which we have the privilege of 
living : 

"The national government, it 
should ever be remembered, is one of 
limited delegated powers and is not a 
pure democracy in which the will of 
a popular majority as expressed at 
the polls at a particular time be- 
comes immediately the supreme law. 
It is a representative republic in 
which the will of the people is to be 
ascertained in a prescribed mode 
and carried into effect only by ap- 
pointed agents designated by the 
people themselves in the manner in- 
dicated by law." 

The advocates of the Initiative and Referen- 
dum look forward to the time when they can so 
amend the Constitution of the United States as 
to establish Direct Legislation in National af- 
fairs ; but for the present they are content to con- 
fine their energies to the constituent States. 

A question of great interest, and possibly of 
extreme importance, came to the front in Novem- 
ber, 1911. On a case from Oregon the Supreme 
Court of the United States had submitted to it 
the question of whether or not the establishment 
of the Initiative and Referendum in anv State is 



18 Initiative and Referendum. 

in conflict with Section Four of Article Four of 
the Constitution of the United States, which de- 
clares that "The United States shall guarantee 
to every State in the Union a Republican Form 
of Government. " In a nutshell, the question is: 
What is a "Republican form of Government?" 
—Does the word "Republican" mean exclusively 
a Representative system, or is it used simply as 
the antithesis of a Monarchial or an Autocratic 
form? The writer does not propose to enter into 
this discussion;— for, aside from his incompe- 
tency as a layman, he is quite content to let the 
Supreme Court settle the question. As a matter 
of fact, moreover, in opposing the Initiative and 
Referendum, he accepts— for argument's sake— 
the assumption of its advocates that it is quite 
within the "reserved" powers of the people of 
any State to so amend their Constitution as to 
permit Direct Legislation. This does not affect 
one jot his contention that the Initiative and 
Referendum is opposed to the Representative 
system as now existing in the several States— 
—both in intent and effect. It may not destroy 
the form of the Representative system, but it 
certainly contracts and negatives its power as 
well as its dignity, as one of the three branches 
of the general American system of Government ; 
and it also undoubtedly injuriously affects the 
character and spirit of both the Legislators and 



INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 19 

their legislation, and inflicts upon the State, to a 
greater or less extent, the evils of the historic 
Pure Democracy. 

REACTIONARY. 

The principles and practical effects of the 
Initiative and Referendum are Reactionary as 
well as Revolutionary. Those who advocate 
Direct Legislation are "Retrogressives," not 
" Progressives. " They have their faces and feet 
turned not to the future, but to the past,— and 
that past is strewn with the wrecks and failures 
of Pure Democracy. It is admitted that the 
"moot" of Old England and the town-meeting 
of Xew England are equally unsuited to the con- 
ditions of to-day. So the Retrogressives have 
adopted the Swiss system of making laws by bal- 
lot, entirely ignoring the great differences in the 
government and the political, social, and geo- 
graphical conditions of Switzerland as compared 
with those of the United States. 

The Hon. Samuel W. McCall, Member of 
Congress from Massachusetts, in an address, 
"Representative as Against Direct Govern- 
ment," before the Ohio Bar Association at the 
Annual Meeting held at Cedar Point, Ohio. July 
12, 1911. said: 

"The framers of the Constitution 
were entirely familiar with the fail- 



20 Initiative and Referendum. 

ure of direct democracy in the gov- 
ernment of numerous populations, 
and they were influenced by their 
knowledge of that failure in devising 
our own structure of republican gov- 
ernment. It is now proposed to 
abandon the discovery of modern 
times, to which Jefferson referred, 
and which he declared to be the only 
method by which rights can be 
secured, and to put in its stead the 
discarded device of the ancients. 
Who, then, are the reactionaries: 
those who are opposed to the substi- 
tution of direct for representative 
government and are in favor of the 
progressive principles of the Ameri- 
can Constitution, or the supporters 
of direct government who advocate 
the return to the reactionary policies 
which thousands of years ago demon- 
strated their destructive effect upon 
the government of any considerable 
populations?" 

THE UNDEMOCRATIC INITIATIVE. 

The Initiative and the Referendum are really 
two distinct propositions, founded on antago- 
nistic principles. The Initiative is based on the 
principle that a minority of voters— generally 8 
per cent— shall be given the right not only to 
initiate Constitutional Amendments or Statutory 



Initiative and Referendum. 21 

Laws, but to decide the exact form in which they 
shall be presented for passage, without giving 
the vast majority of the voters,— 92 per cent— 
either directly or through their representatives, 
any opportunity to amend them. In this respect 
the modern Initiative is far inferior in principle 
to the ancient Pure Democracy, for the latter, 
theoretically anyhow, possessed the principle of 
majority rule. No law can formulate itself; the 
authority to formulate the law is equal to the 
power to pass it if the latter power does not in- 
clude the right to change it or amend it before it 
is passed. Therefore, under the Initiative and 
Referendum, the majority— 92 or 95 per cent— 
find themselves in this predicament : they must 
either accept the bill which the 8 per cent has 
drafted for them, on its own motion, and with- 
out consulting any other authority or proportion 
of citizens,— the majority must either do this, or 
they must succumb to Philosophic Anarchism 
—the absence of any Law except that of the indi- 
vidual will. Quite apart from the advantage of 
having received careful scrutiny and the safe- 
guard of having to pass through several Commit- 
tees, a Legislative Law has this immense supe- 
riority over an Initiative Law:— it is formulated 
by a majority of the voters of the State in a Rep- 
resentative sense;— that is, the Committees 
which recommend it are selected— directly or in- 



22 Initiative and Referendum. 

directly— by a majority of the Legislature, 
which practically, in a numerical idea, represent 
a majority of the voters; then, if a majority of 
the members of the Legislature— who represent 
the majority of the voters of the State —want to 
do so, thev can amend or change the Bill to meet 
their views. But an Initiative Bill represents 
the views of nobody but the signers of the peti- 
tion—a small minority of the total number of 
the voters, and, human nature being what it is, 
probably a large proportion of the signers have 
not got the slightest knowledge of what they 
signed. It is notorious that men can be easily 
persuaded to sign petitions for almost anything. 
The objections to the Initiative are so ob- 
vious to every student of political economy from 
the standpoint of both logic and experience, that 
its advocates are hard driven to produce authori- 
ties to back up their oratorical claims. A careful 
reading of some accepted National and Interna- 
tional authorities quoted as supporting the Ini- 
tiative and Referendum, shows that, as a rule, 
they do not refer to or include the Initiative at 
all, but only cover the Referendum,— and in 
some cases they only refer to the Referendum of 
Legislative Bills or Constitutional Amendments 
drafted by the Legislature or by a Convention 
called .for that purpose. This is largely true of 
Prof. Bryce ; and particularly of such economists 



Initiative and Referendum. 23 

Bus Prof, Oberlioltzer (the author of the one thor- 
ough standard book on the Initiative and Refer- 
endum in America), Prof. Lowell (probably the 
greatest American authority on foreign govern- 
ment and politics) , Prof. Deploige, the eminent 
Belgian economist, and also of M. Numa Droz, 
the leading Swiss writer on the subject, who was 
for twenty years a member of the Swiss Federal 
Council (the highest Federal power) and an ex- 
President of the Republic. The proof of this is 
demonstrated by extracts quoted herein : and it 
will be seen that some of them, while they give a 
qualified endorsement to the Referendum in 
Switzerland, are absolutely opposed to the Ini- 
tiative. But the Initiative and Referendum, as 
now proposed, in this country, must be taken as 
one system. If the mild and qualified approval 
sometimes given to the Swiss Referendum is to 
be applied to the Initiative, — as it is by the 
American apologists of the system— then, by the 
same token, the emphatic condemnation of the 
Initiative by the same writers, should be applied 
to the Referendum, when the two are combined 
in one system. 

REFERENDUM: THEORY VS. PRACTICE. 

The theory of the Referendum must be eon- 
ceded to be that the people— that is. a majority 
of the people— shall rule, in the final passage of 



24 Initiative and Referendum . 

Laws. Yet in its universal application there is 
recognized the absolute right of a small minority 
—from 5 to 8 per cent of the total number of 
voters— to suspend Legislative Laws duly passed 
by the representatives of a majority of the peo- 
ple ; and in practice it results in another minority 
finally passing these Laws, for the history of 
the Referendum is that only a minority of the 
electors vote for the propositions, Therefore, 
while in its outward form it expresses the will of 
the people, yet in substance it has the same un- 
democratic defect possessed by the Initiative— 
Minority Rule. 

It is true that some economists contend that 
"silence gives consent" and that if a majority 
permit a minority to pass a Law, the majority 
have no right to complain. But the same argu- 
ment holds good as to the Representative sys- 
tem : for undoubtedly most of the political evils 
of the day arise from the neglect of a large pro- 
portion of the people to avail themselves of their 
civic privileges and obligations. It is to be fur- 
ther remarked, also, that it is an experience sel- 
dom with an exception, in Switzerland as in 
America, that citizens take far greater interest in 
the election of men than they do in the passage of 
Laws. All observers, native and foreign, are im- 
pressed with the apathy of voters to the proposi- 
tions submitted to them ; and it has been demon- 



INITIATIVE VXD REFERENDUM. 25 

strated in Switzerland that compulsory votii: . 
no r r 3 as fro] sr cent of the vot 

: ballots. What is the remedy ?— Cer- 
tainly i ing people of what they plain - 

they do not want. 

CTIVE TO REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 

The plea that the Initiative and Referendum 
is merely supplementary to the Representative 
make it more effectrv 
■ and experience. Thomas Jeffer 
knew what he was talking about when he de- 
clared that the REPRESENTATIVE SYS- 
TEM was -the ONLY DEVICE" by which the 
rights i i could be assured. Legislators will 

lly have their f respom 

dulled by the Initiative and Referendum. The 
n initi; -: the people can p 

therefore let the people be responsible;— ! 
! the argume] 1. But who will "E 

all" the peo])le ! Yet the ] 
onetimes mak .—though it is 

in the-e days of cheap fawn- 
y so— G V& at] H ugh it 
be! 

Mr. Bryce— and there is no better outside au- 
:'ity — says in his "American Oomm 
1th." that Direct Legislation "tends to lower 
rity and sense of r ility in the 



26 Initiative and Referendum. 

Legislature.'' In his last edition (1910) he de- 
clares that "the Initiative is a supersession of 
the Legislature which tends even more (than the 
Referendum) to reduce its authority." (p. 479.) 

Originally the Portland "Oregonian" was in 
favor of the Initiative and Referendum ; but af- 
ter observing its operations for several years it 
came out emphatically in opposition to it. In one 
of its articles denunciatory of the Initiative and 
Referendum, it said, "It was not intended that 
representative government should be abolished 
by the new system ; but it has been abolished by 
it ; " and it predicts that ' ' Oregon will yet return 
to it." 

The greatest of our American authorities, 
Prof. Oberholtzer, says in the new edition (1911) 
of "The Referendum in America," that it will 
make officials "timid, shambling, ineffective 
men," and that "it is in conflict with the spirit 
and traditions of our political system." 

A leading candidate for the Presidential nom- 
ination, Grov. Woodrow Wilson, one of our most 
learned University educators, says that "it has 
dulled the sense of responsibility among legisla- 
tors, without, in fact, quickening the people to 
the exercise of any real control of affairs." 

Still another great American educator, Prof. 
Lowell, President of Harvard, after showing 
that the Initiative and Referendum was estab- 



Initiative and Refekendum. 27 

lished in Switzerland because of the inexperience 
of that country with Representative government, 
affirms that, applied to ordinary Statutes— as is 
proposed— it is inconsistent with our polity, and 
could not be engrafted without altering its very 
nature. 

Our American Minister to Switzerland, Hon. 
L. S. Swenson, in an impartial statement of the 
working of the system in that country, reports 
that "it lessens the sense of responsibility on 
the part of the legislator. ' ' 

As Prof. Oberholtzer says in the addendum 
to the new edition of his work on the subject, the 
Initiative and Referendum is not only " un- 
American," but it is " un-English, "—meaning 
that it is opposed to the English representative 
system, on which our system is so largely based. 
A comparison of the English Representative sys- 
tem and the Initiative and Referendum plan will 
show this : 

(1) Under the Initiative and Referendum, 
any proposition, though concocted in secret by 
a cabal, club, or caucus, and no matter how crude 
or vicious, or how little understood by the major- 
ity, or how new in principle, can be forced to pop- 
ular vote by an insignificant minority. 

Under the British Representative system, an 
" appeal to the country" (as it is called) is al- 
ways on a measure— when the appeal is on a 



28 Initiative and Keferendum. 

measure— which has been formulated, scrutin- 
ized and presented under Parliamentary rules, 
by the Party which at least when elected repre- 
sented the majority of the people. And, under the 
British system, it is men who are elected, not 
measures which are passed, when an " appeal to 
the country" is made. 

(2) Under the Initiative and Referendum, 
cold, bare, abstract propositions are submitted, 
which by themselves never elicit enough public 
interest to draw out a majority affirmative vote. 

Under the British system, the appeal is not 
only as to a measure, but as to men as well ; with- 
out the latter, tiie former is often simply aca- 
demic, if not lifeless ; with it, there is the vital- 
ization given by the touch of human interest. 

It is the lack of the vitalizing touch of human 
interest which accounts for the deadening indif- 
ference to Initiative and Referendum proposi- 
tions,— resulting in only minority action— so uni- 
versally noted by observers of the system the 
world over. 

LABOR AND THE I. & R. 

The Initiative and Referendum is not only a 
menace to honest and reform government, but 
is a false friend to Labor. It provides a device 
through which unscrupulous " special interests" 
can secure their ends with far greater ease than 



Initiative axd Referendum. 29 

they can under the Representative system, when 
they have familiarized themselves with its tricks 
and when the general public have become wearied 
of the numerous petitions and elections peculiar 
to the system. 

In the first place, while it is not popular to 
tell the truth about the matter, yet it is the truth, 
whole communities can sometimes be polit- 
ically debauched. This has been demonstrated 
iii the two most democratic countries in the world 
—the United States and England. But, without 
the Initiative and Referendum, there has been 
established civic righteousness and electoral hon- 
esty in England, and under the Representative 
system the Dmocracy of Great Britain are now 
making greater strides than are being made in 
any other country. American politicians freely 
concede that, in the past, groups of voters in the 
different States have been bought up not only in 
" blocks of five'' but in droves like sheep. Within 
the past year the proud State of Ohio has been 
humiliated by exposures of wholesale political 
venality in several of her comities. The Repre- 
sentative system was surely not responsible for 
that condition of affairs ; on the contrary, it was 
a showing of what are the possibilities of Direct 
Democracy. And all this is true in spite of the 
undoubted fact, that at heart the great mass of 
the common people are honest. 



30 Initiative and Referendum. 

American Trade Unionists have generally en- 
dorsed the Initiative and Referendum for the 
reason that they believe that through it they can 
secure certain reforms they demand. Possibly 
they might do so;— and probably also, they can 
in due time by the exercise of patience and 
intelligent agitation, secure the same reforms 
through the Representative system, should 
their demands appeal to the sense of reason 
and fair-play of the people of the State. 
But in advocating the Initiative and Ref- 
erendum the Trade Unionists are short-sighted. 
If they, as an organized minority,— -and that they 
are a decided minority of the total electorate 
must be conceded— can secure their demands 
through the Initiative and Referendum, so, like- 
wise, can other minorities use the scheme for 
purposes that are altogether selfish. Because 
Switzerland has the Initiative and Referendum 
it is often spoken of as "the most democratic 
country in the world. ' ' As a matter of fact, how- 
ever, so far as the wage-earners— the "proleta- 
riat"— are concerned, the United States, Eng- 
land, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada— all 
under the Representative system— are far more 
democratic and far more responsive to Labor's 
demands for reform, than is Switzerland. The 
reason is that, as explained elsewhere, the major- 
ity of the people of Switzerland are naturally 



Initiative and Refekendttm. 31 

conservative and anti-Socialist, they being small 
peasant proprietors. No Labor man or Socialist 
will dispute the authority of Robert Hunter. In 
his "Socialists at Work" (1908) he says (speak- 
ing of Switzerland) : 

"The electoral system is open to 
much fraud, which is unscrupulously 
practised by the capitalist parties to 
keep the workers from representa- 
tion in the National Council. At the 
last election the socialists assembled 
70,000 votes, by which they claim to 
have won 25 seats, but they were only 
allowed six. Recent inquiries have 
been made into the extent of exploi- 
tation of child-labor, with the appal- 
ling revelation that 53 per cent of the 
children attending school are also 
employed in laborious daily work. 
The school teachers complain that the 
mentality is now very low, and that 
40 per cent of the children are 
stunted. Capitalism has become in- 
tense, and with it an almost savage 
system of oppression has been insti- 
tuted by the government. * * * Swit- 
zerland has become notorious for the 
frequency with which the soldiery is 
used against striking workmen." 

And all this in the model Initiative-Referen- 
dum Republic! 



32 Initiative and Referendum. 

An estimate has been made that under the 
Initiative and Referendum as operated in Ore- 
gon, 10 per cent of the electorate practically 
make the Constitution and the Laws,— that is, 
that they control, that percentage being the dif- 
ference between the affirmative and the negative 
vote on propositions submitted;— and it should 
always be remembered that the combined affirm- 
ative and negative vote under the sj^stem is only 
from 50 to 75 per cent of the votes cast for candi- 
dates at the same election. To those familiar 
with practical politics it is apparent that un- 
scrupulous men, with money back of them, can 
so use the Initiative and Referendum as to be 
able to "throw" this 10 per cent as desired, for 
"special interests," or for partisan, class or even 
personal ends. 

In fact, the Initiative and Referendum is a 
perfect Pandora's Box of political evils to tor- 
ment the State. 

MEANS MINORITY RULE. 

An overwhelming objection to the system is 
that wherever it has been tried it has resulted in 
minority rule. Even in Switzerland— the most 
favorable State possible for the system— Direct 
Legislation is always by minorities. This is so as 
to important as well as to comparatively trifling 
matters. The vote on the prohibition of absinthe 



Initiative and Referendum. 33 

—a question of great interest in Switzerland- 
only reached 370,470, out of a total voting 
strength of over 800,000. 

Prof. Oberholtzer says in his book, "The Ini- 
tiative and Referendum in America : " " There is 
but a fraction equal to about half of all those 
who know their own minds respecting candidates 
who seem to care anything about measures. ' ' At 
special elections, "it is impossible to get out 
even half the vote, unless it be on a proposition 
to deprive a citizen of his beer or gin. 
Even a proposal to enfranchise an entire new 
half of the race, and to double the electorate, or to 
ally the State openly with lottery men and gam- 
blers." 

What is true of Switzerland and the United 
States is true of Canada. In no country in the 
world are politics keener than in the Dominion, 
and public questions are discussed there as a rule 
with a fervor rare even in the United States. But 
the Canadians will not go to the polls to vote sim- 
ply on propositions ;— there must be "the human 
touch" of candidates to bring out the vote. On 
September 29, 1898. a National "plebiscite" on 
the question of prohibition was taken in Canada 
—that being a burning issue at the time, and 
Premier Laurier was strenuously importuned by 
the temperance element to pass a prohibitory 
Law covering the entire Dominion. So, in order 



34 Initiative and Referendum. 

to test public sentiment, lie referred the question 
to the people — or took a " plebiscite " on it, 
as it is called in that country. The num- 
ber of registered voters was 1,236,423; the 
total number who voted on the proposition 
was 543,013— less than 44 per cent of the 
registered number of voters; while those who 
voted for prohibition was only 278,380 ; those 
against, 264,633;— a majority for prohibition of 
13,747. Now, take careful note of this: Al- 
though the votes cast for Prohibition were only 
22 1-2 per cent of the total number of voters, yet, 
under the undemocratic Referendum plan, that 
number of voters being a majority— although a 
small one— of the votes cast upon the propo- 
sition, prohibition would have been declared 
passed in Canada. But Canadian statesmen are 
reared in the British school of Representative 
government, and Premier Laurier very properly 
declined to accept the result as sufficiently de- 
cisive to warrant Parliamentary action; and 
even Prohibitionists conceded that he was right. 
In an article by Phillip A. Allen in the Bos- 
ton " Evening Transcript, " May 23, 1906, figures 
were given showing the total vote upon various 
Laws and Constitutional Amendments,— 17 in 
number. The percentage ranged from 78 to 19. 
In eight instances the vote was less than 50 per 



Initiative and Referendum. 35 

cent; in only six instances did it exceed 60 per 
cent. 

It is true that in Oregon the percentages on 
Initiative and Referendum propositions have 
been comparatively high; but there are three 
special reasons for this fact: (1) the novelty of 
the thing: — the Oregon people play with direct 
legislation as children do with a new toy; (2) the 
interest aroused by the woman's suffrage cam- 
paign;— and in Oregon, strange to say, there are 
women's organizations strongly opposed to fe- 
male suffrage, as well as in favor of it; (3) the 
fact that Oregon is the home of some of the ablest 
and most fanatical of the National leaders of the 
Initiative and Referendum movement, — men 
who have devoted their lives to it, and who have 
become political potentialities through the organ- 
ized minority forces which the system enables 
them to establish and control. But the day will 
come when the novelty will have gone, when the 
woman's suffrage movement will have settled 
itself, one way or another, and when the people 
will have tired of the leadership of the astute 
gentlemen who now "run things;"— indeed, 
there are evidences that that day is approaching. 

Walter F. Brown, Chairman of the Ohio Re- 
publican State Central Committee, is in favor of 
the principle of the Initiative and Referendum. 



36 Initiative and Referendum. 

But lie feels constrained to confess, after person- 
ally investigating it in Oregon, that "the system 
in force there is far from perfect, and that it 
opens wide the door to the very abuses against 
which it is aimed, to-wit : legislation in the inter- 
est of a selfish minority." (See chapter on Ore- 
gon.) 

The complaint is made in Switzerland that 
only about 43 per cent of the people vote (alto- 
gether) on propositions, under the Referendum. 
(See chapter on Switzerland.) 

Less than 27 per cent of the voters, and only 
6 per cent of the total population of the Territory 
of Arizona, voted for the Initiative-Referendum- 
Recall Constitution. 

In October, 1911, California adopted a new 
Constitution including a number of radical 
amendments, among them being the Initiative, 
Referendum, Recall and Woman's Suffrage. 
These amendments were adopted by a minority 
of the qualified voters of the State,— that is, less 
than half of the voters of the State voted on the 
propositions, including affirmative and negative. 
There were 23 amendments submitted, and the 
official statement of the amendments filled 12 
square feet of small solid print. It was simply 
a physical impossibility for the majority of the 
average voters to read and intelligently pass 
upon such a mass of matters ; — so they simply 



Initiative and Referendum. 37 

stayed away from the polls. The New York 
"Times" (Indep. Dem.), of October 18, 1911, 
speaking of the amendments — apart from the I. 
& R., Recall, and Woman's Suffrage says edito- 
rially, under the heading " Anti-Democracy in 
California : ' ' 

"Most of them are not fit for con- 
stitutional enactment at all, but 
should be within the scope of the 
powers of the Legislature. * * * This 
new method of handling the basic 
law of the State is advocated in the 
name of democracy. In reality it is 
utterly and hopelessly undemocratic. 
While pretending to give greater 
rights to the voters, it deprives them 
of the opportunity effectively and in- 
telligently to use their powers. * * * 
When the machine managers get 
familiar with the working of the new 
method, they will work it for their 
own ends far more readily than they 
work the present method. The aver- 
age voter, muddled and puzzled and 
tired by the impossible task of really 
understanding and deciding on a 
mass of matters, will give it up, and 
then the politicians will get in their 
fine work. * * * It would be as easy 
to run the business of a big railroad 
by leaving every detail of its manage- 
ment to a vote of the shareholders 



38 Initiative and Referendum. 

as it will be to run the business of 
a State under the new system." 

The New York "Sun" says: 

"Out of 43 of the 64 measures 
submitted in Oregon since 1904, only 
75, or less than 75 out of 100 men who 
went to the polls, voted yes or no. 
In only 14 out of 32 cases in the last 
election did the percentage rise to 70 
or more than 70. When the percen- 
tage is 70, 36 per cent of the voters 
can enact a law. * * * In the decade 
from 1899 to 1908 out of 472 consti- 
tutional questions submitted to the 
people of various states as many as 
240 received less than half the vote 
cast for candidates. Only 8 reached 
or exceeded 90 per cent. In Cali- 
fornia in 1904, when 6 amendments 
were submitted to the people, none 
received more than 40 per cent of the 
vote; in 1906 when 14 amendments 
were submitted, the lowest percen- 
tage was 30, the highest 33. In Colo- 
rado in 1900 one amendment received 
19 per cent. In Connecticut 3 amend- 
ment s in 1905 varied from 18 to 22 
per cent; 4 in Florida in 1900, from 
24 to 32 per cent ; 7 in the same state 
in 1904 from 22 to 30 per cent; 8 in 
New Jersey in 1903 from 11 to 12 per 
cent ; 7 in New York in 1905 from 25 
to 30 per cent; 3 in Pennsylvania in 



Initiative and Referendum. 39 

1901 from 27 to 30 per cent ; 2 in Vir- 
ginia in 1901 from 10 to 11 per cent ; 
1 in Indiana in 1906 about 8 per cent ; 
1 in Ohio in 1903 only 6 per cent." 

"SERVES THE MAJORITY RIGHT!" 

It is sometimes argued that if the majority 
fail to vote it is their own fault if the minority 
carry the day, — and that the majority then have 
no right to complain. It is not a matter of com- 
plaining, — it's a matter of adopting a system 
the universal experience with which is that it 
elicits the interest of only a minority of the 
voters. The argument referred to cuts both 
ways, — it can be used in favor of the Repre- 
sentative system with just as much force: for if 
the majority of the electors took sufficient inter- 
est to elect honest and capable men, there would, 
admittedly, be no need of the Initiative and 
Referendum ; — and if this is not done, then the 
electors have no right to complain; the remedy 
is in the people's own hands, and if they don't 
use it it is their own fault. But human nature 
must be accepted as it is, and the wise statesman 
tries to utilize it to the best advantage. He cer- 
tainly, however, will not make it easy for the 
minority to enforce its will against the majority, 
even though the majority is to blame, unless such 
a system is absolutely unavoidable. That is the 
best system of popular government which ap- 



40 Initiative and Referendum. 

peals to the largest number of the electors in an 
intelligent manner, not in a mere transitory 
fashion, but continuously. There is something 
radically wrong with a system the inevitable and 
universal tendency of which is to cause a ma- 
jority of the electors to practically disfranchise 
themselves. The Initiative and Referendum as 
an effective instrument of popular government is 
opposed to human nature and human experi- 
ence ; — that of itself absolutely condemns it. 

THE CITIES WILL DOMINATE. 

Already 17 counties in which the large cities 
are situated can outvote the remaining 77 coun- 
ties of Ohio. The report of the Secretary of 
State for 1908 shows that the vote of these 17 
counties was in that year 571,545, while that of 
the other 77 counties was but 564,980. That 
difference keeps on increasing. The U. S. Cen- 
sus returns for 1910 show that in that year 60 
per cent of the population of Ohio were in urban 
dstricts, leaving only 40 per cent in the country 
districts, — a change of 12 per cent in 10 years 
in increase of the urban population. Not only 
are native Americans flocking more and more 
into the cities, but the cities are yearly receiving 
vast multitudes of immigrants who do not speak 
our language, and who have not been reared in 
self-government as we understand it in America. 



Initiative and Refekendum. 41 

Is it not plain that the country folk are in im- 
minent danger of being swamped as to legislation 
by the ever-growing multitudes of our cities ? A 
sure way to bring that about would be by en- 
grafting the Initiative and Referendum onto our 
Constitution. Is that desirable ? 

The advocates of the Initiative and Refer- 
endum clearly understand this ; — in fact, it 
looks as if this is what they want, — they want 
to enforce their rule on the country districts, 
even though it will be by the monstrous injustice 
of Minority Rule, which is always the effect of 
the Initiative and Referendum. They know that 
this can be done not only through the increase 
of population of the cities over the country, but 
because experience with the Initiative and Refer- 
endum has demonstrated that the various classes, 
groups and special interests of the cities can be 
effectively organized through underhand and 
corrupt methods, if that be necessary, as the ex- 
perience of Oregon, South Dakota, and even 
Switzerland, shows. Brand Whitlock, the 
fourth-term Mayor of Toledo, and the President 
of the Progressive Constitution League of Ohio, 
and who is being constantly heralded as an up- 
to-date Reformer, is reported to have said to a 
group of working men : ' ' Under representative 
form of government the counties hold the balance 
of power. Under direct legislation the city will 



42 Initiative and Refekendujvl 

control. The farmers have always been dead 
weight about the necks of the laboring men. We 
will get the Initiative and Referendum and will 
then give them a taste of the same kind of legis- 
lation they have been giving us." — (Address of 
Mrs. Mary E. Lee, at Fairview, Ohio, Aug. 23, 
1911.) 

Is that a statesmanlike utterance? 

THE GATE-WAY TO SOCIALISM. 

The old " International" Socialists were the 
first organized political group to fully appreciate 
the stupendous use which can be made of the In- 
itiative and Referendum to enable a minority to 
grasp the power of government. Unquestion- 
ably it is the realization of this fact which is 
giving such uneasiness to the more thoughtful 
and statesmanlike of the Swiss public men and 
political economists. So long as Switzerland 
was purely an agricultural and a pastoral coun- 
try, with the small peasant proprietors in com- 
plete control, the Referendum (not the Initia- 
tive) was fairly successful, under the unique 
political system and social conditions of that 
country. But of recent years a change has com- 
menced to come over the character of the popu- 
lation and in their social conditions; the pro- 
letariat has arrived. 

As far back as 1869 the "International" ap- 



Initiative and Refeeendttm. 43 

proved the Referendum, at the Convention at 
Basle. It has since then — along with the In- 
itiative — been one of the most prominent of the 
"immediate demands" of International Social- 
ism. It appeared in the Program of Gotha, in 
1895, and again in the Program of the Erfurt 
Congress. The Initiative, Referendum and the 
Recall are always included in the National and 
State platforms of the American Socialist Party. 
The Socialists, while they are in a dream as to 
the establishment of the Marxian " Co-operative 
Commonwealth," know what they want as to 
"immediate demands," and especially as to the 
Initiative, Referendum and the Recall. If 
Socalism is ever established in the United 
States — so far as it can be established — it will 
be through the Initiative and Referendum, 
should this glorious land of true liberty ever 
forget itself sufficiently as to adopt that suicidal 
policy. 

Following is an extract from an article in the 
"Contemporary Review" (London, Eng.), Jan- 
uary, 1911, by a well-known American writer on 
political economy, Mr. Frank Foxcroft (Bos- 
ton) : 

"It is to be observed, too, that 
under this system (Initiative and 
Referendum) the conservatives are 
always at a disadvantage. The dice 
are loaded against them. The vari- 



44 Initiative and Refekendtjm. 

ous groups, the Socialists, the single- 
taxers, the woman suffragists and the 
rest will sign each other's petitions 
and get their different propositions 
before the people. When the cam- 
paign opens the radicals are alreadj^ 
organized. They know what they 
want, and they will co-operate ener- 
getically to secure it. But the con- 
servatives are handicapped. It is al- 
ways harder to organize the negative 
than the affirmative." 

There is a tremendous political truth in the 
latter observation. Not only is the Initiative 
and Referendum a game of "loaded dice" 
against the unorganized majority, but it is a 
cruel handicap and an eternal danger to un- 
organized minorities, who are dumb and helpless 
against others of their fellow-citizens who are 
organized, and are possibly not as considerate 
of the rights of others as they ought to be. One 
of the glorious advantages of the Representa- 
tive system is that it tends to protect the rights 
of the otherwise helpless minorities. No system 
of government is truly democratic which does not 
do that. 

"THE MADNESS OF DEMOCRACY." 

At the Dinner of the Army of the Tennessee, 
at Council Bluffs, Iowa, October 11, 1911, Arch- 



Initiative axd Refeeexdoi. 45 

bishop Ireland severely condemned the Initia- 
tive, Referendum and Recall. Among other 
things he said: 

"The clamor now is heard that 
the organization of American Demo- 
cracy, such as the Republic has 
known for a century and a quarter, 
must be altered, torn asunder, under 
the pretense that with it the people 
do not govern with sufficient direct- 
ness. Let us hope that the clamor 
is but a passing ebullition of feel- 
ing. 

4 ' Democracy, yes ; Mobocraey, 
never. And toward Mobocracy we 
are now bidden to wend our way. 
The shibboleths of the clamor, the In- 
itiative, the Referendum, the Recall, 
put into general practice, as the evan- 
gelists of the new social gospel would 
fain have them, are nothing more nor 
less than the madness of Democracy." 

Cardinal Gibbons is equally emphatic. In 
a sermon delivered at Baltimore, Sim day, Octo- 
ber 1, 1911, he said: "To give to the masses the 
right of annulling the Acts of the Legislature is 
to substitute Mob Law for established Law." 

"TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION." 

Writing from France, to Madison, December 
20, 1787, Thomas Jefferson spoke of "the good 



46 Initiative and Eefeeendum. 

of preserving inviolate the fundamental princi- 
ple that the people are not to be taxed, but by 
representatives chosen immediately by them- 
selves." The Initiative and Referendum would 
abolish this " fundamental principle," and would 
place the tremendous power of taxation — the 
highest power any State can exercise, next only 
to that of imprisonment or inflicting the death 
penalty — in the hands of selfish groups and 
classes of organized minorities. While it is right 
and proper that communities should vote upon 
specific propositions imposing special taxation, 
after they have been thrashed out and formu- 
lated by some representative body, the case is 
immensely different under the purpose of the 
proposed State-wide Initiative and Referendum. 
In practical effect the latter would be " taxation 
without representation," because the tax would 
be formulated in secret by some minority group, 
and then — possibly included with a number of 
other befuddling propositions — submitted on a 
Referendum, which experience shows would only 
arouse the interest of a minority. The property 
of the tax-paying citizens would thus be at the 
mercy of any minority who desired to " shift" 
the burden of taxes on shoulders other than their 
own. This consideration alone ought to be suffi- 
cient to bury the Initiative and Referendum be- 
neath an avalanche of votes when the people of 



Initiative and Refebendtjm. 47 

the State get a chance at the system in concrete 
form. 

MEANS CRUDE LEGISLATION. 

Advocates of the Initiative and Referendum 
are compelled to recognize the force of the ob- 
jection that crude measures are sure to be sub- 
mitted to the people under their system. It is 
now suggested that the Legislature should have 
power to amend crude measures adopted by the 
people under the Initiative. This certainly 
would be desirable should the Initiative unfor- 
tunately become established in our system of 
legislation; but it is a confession that Direct 
Legislation, while possibly all right as an 
abstract theory, is impracticable as a system of 
actual legislation. There is also this serious ob- 
jection to the suggested compromise : In its very 
essence Direct Legislation is a proclamation that 
the people do not trust the Legislature; it is 
therefore reasonable to assume that Legislators 
would take but little interest in bills submitted to 
them under the Initiative, particularly when 
they would have to be referred back to the peo- 
ple for adoption; the probable consequence, 
therefore, would be that the Legislators would 
be inclined to wash their hands of the entire mat- 
ter, and let the bills pass even with conceded 
defects. First, there would be general indiffer- 



48 Initiative and Referendum. 

ence because of lack of direct responsibility ; and 
secondly the Legislators would take rather a 
cynical pleasure in demonstrating that the people 
en masse are incapable of legislating properly. 
While these controlling influences are not to be 
commended, they are quite in line with the in- 
fluences controlling human nature ; — and no leg- 
islation or system of government in the world has 
yet succeeded in killing human nature. 

One of the strongest objections is that under 
the Initiative, measures must be accepted or re- 
jected in their entirety. Under the Representa- 
tive system, it is very seldom that a bill is passed 
in the exact form in which it is introduced, — 
even though it be drawn up by an experienced 
legislator. It is scrutinized by a committee in 
each branch, and then has to be read and debated 
by the members of both branches. Finally, it has 
to run the gauntlet of the Governor's veto. But 
under the Oregon plan every measure must be 
submitted exactly in the form in which it is on 
the petition. Even though the substance of the 
bill might be worthy, yet the form of the bill 
might be defective ; or it is quite likely that while 
part of the bill might be advisable to enact, other 
portions might be highly objectionable. But the 
genuine Initiative bill must go to the people with- 
out the change of a word, and be voted upon with 
all its original imperfections, "Let the people 



Initiative and Referendum. 49 

rule ! ' ' To give opportunities for needed amend- 
ments is an interference with that divine right ! 
The New York "Nation," — one of the ablest 
and most independent journals in America — 
said September 21, 1911 : 

"The heart of the issue lies in the 
question whether in the long run the 
initiative-referendum system will sap 
the vitality of representative govern- 
ment ; whether it will result in turn- 
ing over all really vital questions to 
the decision of a mere numerical ma- 
jority at the polls — . in a state of 
things in which a momentous change 
like the introduction of prohibition 
or the free coinage of silver may be 
effected in a moment, without the in- 
terposition of any chance for the as- 
sertion, by representative men, of 
those intellectual and moral powers 
which have hitherto been regarded as 
an essential part of the forces that 
shape our political destinies." 

THE JOSEPH FELS FUND COMMISSION. 

Note. — The writer wishes it dis- 
tinctly understood that in giving the 
following facts he does not intend to 
cast any personal reflection upon Mr. 
Joseph Fels or upon the gentlemen 
who compose the Commission which 
manages the fund established for the 
purpose of "putting the Land Value 



50 Initiative and Referendum. 

Tax into effect somewhere in the 
United States within five years;" — 
and as to the talented corps of polit- 
ical organizers and orators working 
under the instructions of the Com- 
mission, they cannot be criticised for 
the part they play. Neither does the 
writer take any position — for or 
against — with regard to the Henry 
George theory of Land Tax Value. 
He believes, however, that the people 
of the country should clearly under- 
stand what has put new life into the 
Single-Tax movement in America, 
and what is the propulsive force back 
of the agitation for the Initiative and 
Referendum, and the reasons there- 
for. 

Some of the facts given below 
have been denied in public debate by 
one of the leading Single-Tax en- 
thusiasts, who was largely instru- 
mental in securing delegates to the 
Ohio State Constitutional Convention 
pledged to the Initiative and Refer- 
endum. Hence the preciseness of 
detail in quotations from an official 
authoritative source which cannot be 
challenged. The pages indicated be- 
low refer to the Report of the Single 
Tax Conference, held at New York, 
November 19-20, 1910, under the 
auspices of the Fels Fund Commis- 
sion.) 



Initiative and Referendum. 51 

"While Socialism, ever since the days of the 
old European " International," has always 
frankly declared for the Initiative and Refer- 
endum, as a means to accomplish its purposes, 
the propulsive force back of the present move- 
ment in the United States is that which is fur- 
nished by the Single Taxers, with the financial 
backing of a rather unique character, Mr, Joseph 
Fels, a millionaire soap maker, of London, Eng- 
land. It is a matter of common knowledge that 
the Single Tax movement was as dead as a salt 
mackerel until the last few years; but a remark- 
able resurrection and revivification of the almost 
forgotten cult has taken place ; and the miracle 
has been effected by the stream of gold the foun- 
tain head of which is the rather blunt and frank, 
but very generous millionaire soap maker, Mr. 
Joseph Fels, of London. And "Eureka !"— the 
way has been discovered by which the erstwhile 
academic doctrines of Henry George, held by but 
a handful of devotees, can be forced on the ma- 
jority, namely, through the Initiative and Ref- 
erendum. 

'MUM'S THE WORD!" 

There is an organization of National scope 
called the Fels Fund Commission, the officially 
declared object of which is "not to propagandize 
the country, but to put the Land Value Tax into 



52 Initiative and Referendum. 

effect somewhere in the United States within five 
years — and that requires votes, which cannot be 
got without political action." (Page 13, Report 
of Single Tax Conference, held in New York, 
Nov. 19 and 20, 1910.) A careful reading of the 
official Report of the Fels Fund Commission and 
of the speeches made at the small but important 
Conference of Single Taxers held in 1910, clearly 
shows that there is much significance to be at- 
tached to the declaration that the Commission's 
activities lay not in propagandizing the country, 
but in political work. The political work referred 
to is aiding the movement for the Initiative and 
Ref erendum throughout the country, as the best 
means of securing the Single Tax. Mr. Jackson 
H. Ralston, of Washington, D. C, said at the 
Conference : " As for Direct Legislation, it bears 
to Single Tax as close a relation as a lock does to 
the door." (P. 17.) Mr. Lincoln Steffens, the 
well-known writer and Single Taxer, was frank 
enough to confess: "They knew what they 
wanted and went to work to get it without mak- 
ing any unnecessary noise about it." (P. 21.) 
Mr. W. S. U'Ren, the man who won Oregon for. 
the Initiative and Referendum, and through it 
has "cleared the way" for the Single Tax, — in- 
cidentally against the will of the majority of the 
people of Oregon— is also delightfully frank, in 
the privacy of the Conference. (P. 21.) 



Initiative axd Referendum. 53 

Some of the old-line orthodox Single Tax- 
ers — those who believe in a straight-out fight for 
principles — do not approve of the methods of 
the Fels Fund Commission. The Report of the 
Conference says (P. 10): "Some criticism has 
been made of the Commission's expenditure of 
money for the Initiative and Referendum." A 
number of letters of criticism were read, but the 
late Tom L. Johnson, of Cleveland, "endorsed 
the work done and the expenditures made outside 
of ' straight Single Tax propaganda.' " (P. 17.) 
One critic, Mr. E. L. Heydecker. of Xew York, 
was bold enough to openly oppose the Initiative 
and Referendum. (P. 19.) The editor of the 
"Single Tax Review", feared "entangling alli- 
ances, also the danger of diverting our own prop- 
agandists to Direct Legislation rather than to 
our own great principle." He quoted Mr, Fels 
in support of his contention that the clear agita- 
tion for the taxation of land values would bring 
about Direct Legislation quicker than anything 
else." (P. 19-20.) Mr. Fels admitted this, but 
he was willing to leave the matter of methods to 
the Commission; and he said: "I now offer to 
duplicate every dollar that these gentlemen will 
raise for any work they want to do in their own 
way, and I don't expect any takers on that propo- 
sition." (P. 20.) (This offer, it should be borne 



54 Initiative and Referendum. 

in mind, was in addition to his other munificent 
contributions to the Commission.) 

The " Public" of Chicago is an official organ 
of the Single Taxers, and is subsidized by the 
Fels Fund Commission. There are three items 
recorded in the Report of monies received by and 
in behalf of the " Public" from the Fels Fund: — 
one of $2,437.80, by Emil Schniied, for " exploita- 
tion of 'Public,' "Jan. 1 to October 31, 1910 (p. 
31); the second, of $1,494.10 to " sustention 
fund," (p. 34) ; the third, of $1,434.73 (p. 34) ; - 
making a total of $5,366.63 for 1909-10. On July 
28, 1911, the "Public" confessed that Single 
Taxers "realize that it is by means of the Initia- 
tive and Referendum, and only so, that the work 
of Henry George can be consummated." 

MONEY GALORE. 

In the Initiative - Referendum - Single - Tax 
campaign in Oregon up to December 1, 1910, the 
Fels Fund Commission spent $16,775. (P. 3.) 
"It was unanimously agreed that the appropria- 
tion for the work in Oregon from December 1, 
1910, to November 30, 1911, be $12,000." (P. 26.) 

In 1910 the Initiative and Referendum cam- 
paign in Missouri was "assisted" to the extent 
of $800. (P. 3.) 

"The cost of the Rhode Island campaign to 
December 1, 1910," under Mr. John Z. White, 



Initiative and Refebenditm. 55 

of Chicago, (the same gentleman who has been 
in Ohio), was $1,514.93. (P. 4.) Mr. White was 
in New Mexico, "with a successful result;" also 
in Arizona and Colorado. "Arrangements were 
made with John Z. White by which his contract 
with the Commission is extended at least another 
year from July 1, 1911, with the hope that the 
contract may be made permanent, co-equal with 
the life of the Commission." (P. 27.) On page 
27 there is also this significant item: "Fred C. 
Howe and Bolton Hall were appointed to take 
up with Mr. Byron Holt a suggestion he made to 
Mr. Joseph Fels to furnish speakers for Granges 
on Land Value Taxation, and if their enquiry 
should prompt a recommendation of Mr. Holt's 
plan, their advice was to be considered the advice 
of the Commission." In this connection it is 
worth recalling that at the National Convention 
of Granges held at Columbus, O., in November, 
1911, although several enthusiasts were present 
from the West in behalf of the Initiative and 
Referendum and the Single Tax, neither of these 
propositions was endorsed. 

Contributions totalling $1,391.28 were made 
to the work in Arizona, Colorado and New Mex- 
ico ; and $282.32 to that in Arkansas. (P. 4.) 

Among the receipts by the Commission in 
1909-10 was a donation of $5,000 from Mr. 
Joseph Fels to Bolton Hall, of New York; and 



56 Initiative and Refekendum. 

another of $30,000 from the same gentleman to 
the late Mr. Tom L. Johnson, of Cleveland, O. 
(P. 30.) 

Under the head of "general activities," there 
is an item of the disbursement by Mr. Johnson of 
$3,295.42 to the "Ohio Direct Legislation 
League." (P. 31.) There is a paragraph on 
page 4 which explains that this amount was spent 
for the Initiative and Referendum movement in 
Ohio in 1909, "with barren results as far as 
legislative action was concerned." Who got this 
money? For what purpose was it used? These 
are legitimate questions. 

Referring to his munificent contributions to 
the Single Tax movement, Mr. Fels spoke indif- 
ferently of them, as if it was only a small matter 
to him, and with magnificent contempt he ex- 
claimed—so reads the official report— "Damn 
the money!" (P. 13) It seems, according to Mr. 
Fels' admission, that it was Mr, Daniel Kiefer, 
of Cincinnati, who first interested him in the Sin- 
gle-Tax movement. Mr. Fels tells with simple 
naivete that it was Mr. Kiefer 's "knowledge of 
what we wanted and how to get it that brought 
Mr. Fels under his influence." (P. 16.) Mr. 
Kiefer is Chairman of the Commission. During 
the Conference he was praised as "a national 
money raiser." (P. 16.) 



Initiative and Referendum. 57 

In a supplementary statement issued by the 
Commission (undated) to subscribers, the in- 
formation is given that Mr. Joseph Fels is giv- 
ing $25,000 a year to the Commission and that 
he " offers to give $50,000 or $100,000 a year, 
and even more, if the Single Taxers of the 
United States will contribute that amount," The 
condition has been met. On November 25, 1911, 
the Cincinnati " Enquirer" published a tele- 
graphic news item from Chicago, in reference to 
a meeting of the Single Tax advocates and the 
Pels Fund Commission; and it said: " Accord- 
ing to the terms of the Joseph Fels Fund, all 
money raised for five years for the purpose of 
testing the Single Tax plan will be duplicated 
from the fund. Chairman Daniel Kiefer, of 
Cincinnati, announced that about $100,000 
already had been raised." As Mr. Fels has 
agreed to duplicate the contributions, dollar for 
dollar, he will give another $100,000, making a 
total of at least $200,000 available for the Initia- 
tive-Referendum-Single-Tax campaign of 1912. 

THE STANDARD AMERICAN AUTHORITY. 

"The Referendum in America" is the stan- 
dard work on the subject. Its author is Prof. 
Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer, of the University of 
Pennsylvania. After giving an exhaustive his- 
tory of Direct Legislation in America, and critic- 



58 Initiative and Refeeendum. 

ally examining its operations and effects, lie 
comes to this conclusion (Edition of 1900) : 

" *■ * « Though the evils of the 
representative system are admittedly 
great the fact must be kept in mind 
that direct legislation by the people 
is also attended by abuses of a very 
serious kind. So far as our experi- 
ence has already gone in the United 
States a number of glaring defects 
have been exhibited by the people in 
their role as law-makers. The most 
impressive of these is their strange 
apathy even in the face of great is- 
sues. They as a mass have so little 
interest in legislative subjects that 
only a small percentage will attend 
the polls for special elections and at 
general elections when individual 
candidates are to be chosen, though 
the propositions be printed on the 
same ballots with the names of the 
candidates, a large proportion of the 
voters will not put themselves to the 
slight trouble of placing a pencil 
mark under the word "yes" or "no." 
The conclusion is unavoidable that 
the people considered as a body do 
not know anything, nor do they care 
anything about the merits or demerits 
of a particular law. They may know 
little in the opinion of most of us 
about the respective merits of candi- 



Initiative axd Referendum. 59 

elates for representative offices. For 
one reason or another, the people still 
have enough interest in this subject 
to record their preferences. It is true 
that the largest possible vote is never 
polled for candidates, but, speaking 
roughly, twice as many electors vote 
for individuals as vote for measures. 
Furthermore, very strange popular 
idiosyncrasies are developed at elec- 
tions on propositions. When several 
are submitted at the same time all 
are likely to be defeated, or else all 
adopted. There seems to be little 
capacity for discrimination. Again 
very radical measures and many in- 
deed of dangerous tendencies are not 
always rejected by the people, or if 
they are there are not a few cases in 
which this result seems to have been 
brought about by accident rather 
than by serious moral purpose. It is 
easy to see on a most cursory exami- 
nation that under such circumstances 
the people are very far from being an 
ideal body of law-makers." 

There has been issued a new and revised 

edition of "The Referendum in America," by 
Dr. Oberholtzer, dated August, 1911. In the 
preface to this edition, the author makes a dig- 
nified protest against his work being " quoted as 
favorable to a system of direct government in 



60 Initiative and Referendum. 

America." In supplementary chapters covering 
the years from 1900 to 1911 he makes himself 
clear that he is decidedly opposed to the new- 
fangled Initiative, Referendum and Recall, as 
the following excerpts will show : 

He speaks of the movement in Oregon as a 
"current of folly," a checking of which, he notes, 
is indicated by the vote on the 32 propositions in 
1910. In introducing his statement of the Re- 
call he says : " To complete the work of destruc- 
tion which the direct government agitators have 
in hand, nothing was needed but the right to 
organize a party to turn duly designated officials 
out of place and to set up others in their stead. 
* * * If the legislature is to go, then, why 
not the Governor and the courts also?" "In 
Oregon," he says, further on, "where all is fluid 
and the perfectionists are at work endeavoring to 
make themselves the citizens of a new Arcadia, 
the use of the recall is becoming frequent." 
Again referring to Oregon, Prof. Oberholtzer 
directs attention to the fact that "any charlatan, 
if he can obtain enough signers to his petition, 
can bring forward a plan for changing the Con- 
stitution. * * * The tinker is always busy, and 
the fruit of his activity is a deranged body of 
provisions— a confused, inconsistent code which 
bears no relation, except in the extremes of its 



Initiative and Referendum. 61 

variance, to the Constitution of a more estima- 
ble period in American history." 

In South Dakota— according to the statement 
of the Governor of that State— ten cents a name 
are paid to signers to a Referendum Petition, 
but it seems, that "in Portland (Ore.) there is 
an organization which contracts to provide sig- 
natures to initiative and referendum petitions at 
regular published rates— three to five cents per 
name. ' ' 

Minority Rule under the Initiative and 
Referendum is thus stated by Prof. Oberlioltzer : 

"The defence is properly set up 
for a representative form of govern- 
ment with a division of powers, that 
it protects the rights of minorities. 
The majority of the people may not 
directly attack the interests of the 
minority. Yet in the use of the in- 
itiative, the referendum and the recall 
what is seen ? The minority often ab- 
solutely controls the majority. In- 
deed it seems to be assumed that this 
is their right." 

As to the effect of the Initiative and Refer- 
endum and the Recall on public officers, and the 
Legislature, as contrasted with the results of our 
Representative system, he says: 



62 Initiative and Referendum. 

"Men like Washington and Lin- 
coln, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay 
and John C. Calhoun, were not the 
products of any political system in 
which bodies of mediocre men with 
hobbies robbed the legislature of its 
dignity and authority, and subjected 
executive, legislative and judicial of- 
ficers to the fear of recall when they 
pursued a course distasteful to some 
fraction of the electorate. Only 
timid, shambling, ineffective men can 
come out of a system which strips 
public office of character and author- 
ity and makes it directly subservient 
to popular whim." 

And the concluding sentences of this new edi- 
tion of the " Referendum in America" are a com- 
bined condemnation and prophecy: 

"It (direct legislation) is in con- 
flict with the spirit and traditions of 
our political system, as will soon be 
perceived by growing numbers of 
men. While the people are subject to 
sudden impulse and at times commit 
the most serious mistakes they have 
seldom erred through years in the 
long run on the question of great 
fundamental principles. When they 
come to understand the purposes of 
these ' reforms', and can see beyond 
the present to the end, it is safe to 



Initiative and Referendum. 63 

predict that there will be a read- 
justment of opinion as radical as the 
movement by which our standards 
have been so ruthlessly deranged." 

HON. JAMES BRYCE ON DIRECT LEGISLATION. 

Hon. James Bryce, the British Ambassador 
to the United States, has a very interesting chap- 
ter in his incomparable work, "The American 
Commonwealth/' on Direct Legislation. He 
notes the tendencies of the American people to 
distrust their Legislatures, and "to seize such 
chances as occurred of making laws for them- 
selves in their own way; 7 ' and he adds: "Con- 
currently with the growth of these tendencies 
there had been a decline in the quality of the 
State legislature, and of the legislation which 
they turned out." According to Mr. Bryce, each 
of these tendencies re-acted upon the other. He 
proceeds to say : 

"What are the practical advan- 
tages of this plan of direct legislation 
by the people? Its demerits are 
obvious. Besides those I have al- 
ready stated, it tends to lower the au- 
thority and sense of responsibility in 
the legislature; and it refers matters 
needing much elucidation by debate 
to the determination of those who 
cannot, on account of their numbers, 



64 Initiative and Refeeendum. 

meet together for discussion, and 
many of whom have never thought 
about the matter. These considera 
tions will to most Europeans appear 
decisive against it. The proper 
course, they will say, is to improve 
the legislatures. The less you trust 
them, the worse they will be. They 
may be ignorant ; yet not so ignorant 
as the masses. " — (P. 453, 2nd ed. 
Am. Com.) 

Mr. Bryce goes on to say that he regards the 
Referendum— as it then existed— "as being 
rather a bit and bridle than a spur" on the Legis- 
lature ; and he concludes by saying that the sj^s- 
tem, "liable as it doubtless is to abuse, causes in 
the present condition of the States, fewer evils 
than it prevents." 

Because of these conclusions by Mr. Bryce 
as to the operation of a very qualified form of the 
Referendum, it is sometimes claimed by reck- 
less enthusiasts that he has given the authority 
of his great name in favor of the Initiative and 
Referendum as now operated, say in Oregon. 
This claim has no warrant. What Mr. Brvce was 
referring to was not the new Initiative and Ref- 
erendum at all, but the historic American system 
of referring to the people Constitutional Amend- 
ments and Statutory Acts which had been duly 
scrutinized, debated and passed with all the tra- 



Initiative axd Referendum. 65 

ditionary safeguards, either by a Convention 
or a Legislature. He could not have referred to 
the Initiative in any way. The second edition 
of the " American Commonwealth/'— from 
which the above extracts are taken— was pub- 
lished in 1889. The first State to adopt the Ini- 
tiative was South Dakota; that was not until 
1898, and it only applied to Statute Laws. The 
first State to apply the Initiative to Constitution- 
al Amendments was Oregon, and that was not 
until 1902. 

In the new edition (1910) of the "American 
Commonwealth/' Mr. Brvce maintains his for- 
mer cautiousness as to expressing any definite 
•opinion on the subject,— but what he does say 
must be considered adverse. After remarking 
upon the inconclusiveness of the results of the 
American experiments, he goes on to say: "Nor 
does the experience of Switzerland furnish much 
guidance, so dissimilar are the social conditions 
and the political habits of the two nations." Of 
the Referendum, he says that it is " troublesome 
and costly to take the votes of millions of peo- 
ple." Speaking of the lack of responsibility 
and authority on the part of American State 
Legislatures, he observes, in this last edition: 
"The Initiative is a supersession of the Legis- 
lature which tends even more to reduce its au- 
thority." (P. 479.) He urges that further 



66 Initiative and Refekendum. 

time and tests must be had before judgment can 
be pronounced as to the working of these new 
expedients ; and he prints prominently this very 
significant special Note to the Edition of 1910 
on " Recent Tendencies in State Politics," he 
referring to the disposition of Americans to 
blame and to be impatient with their Legisla- 
tures : 

' ' Such impatience is not always 
justified, for the masses sometimes 
expect from legislation benefits which 
no legislation can give and blame 
their representatives when the fault 
lies not in the latter but in the nature 
of things. But the people will in try- 
ing to do themselves the work they 
desire to have done doubtless come to 
learn in time how much harder that 
work is than thev had believed, and 
how much more skill it needs than 
either they or their legislators have 
yet acquired." 

WOODROW WILSON AND THE I. & R.* 

Prof. Woodrow Wilson, speaking as Presi- 
dent of Princeton University, at the annual 
meeting of the Civic League of St. Louis, Mo., 
March 9, 1909, said: 

" You know we have heard a great 
deal recently about the government of 

* It is fair to Professor Wilson to say that the newspapers re- 
port that he has recently changed his opinion. 



Initiative -and Referendum. 67 

the country by the people of the coun- 
try, and I must say that it seems to 
me we have been talking a great deal 
of nonsense. A government can be 
democratic only in the sense that it 
is a government restrained, controlled 
by public opinion. It can never be a 
government conducted by public 
opinion. What I mean to sav is this : 
that POPULAR INITIATIVE IS 
AN INCONCEIVABLE THING! 

a * * * You say that your legis- 
latures do not represent you — and 
sometimes, I dare say, they do not, 
though I think they are generally just 
as good as you deserve — and there- 
fore, you say, let us directly vote upon 
the measures which they vote upon. 
Do you not see that this is simply 
adding another piece of machinery 
which, after you cease to be interested 
in it, is going to be used by the same 
set of persons for the same objects? 
If you do not see it, you will see it 
after you have tried it awhile." 

(The above speech is reprinted in full in 
Cong. Record, August 19, 1911.) 

Prof. Woodrow Wilson has also committed 
himself unequivocally in writing to condemna- 
tion of the Initiative and Referendum. In "The 
State" (Rev, ed., 1898, pp. 311, 313) and in 



68 Initiative and Referendum. 

" Constitutional Government in the United 
States" (pp. 104, 188-191) this learned author- 
ity said : 

"The vote upon most measures 
submitted to the ballot is usually very 
light ; there is not popular discussion, 
and the referendum by no means 
creates that quick interest in affairs 
which its originators had hoped to see 
it excite. It has dulled the sense of 
responsibility among legislators with- 
out, in fact, quickening the people to 
the exercise of any real control in 
affairs. * * * Where it (the Initia- 
tive) has been employed it has not 
promised either progress or enlight- 
enment, leading rather to doubtful 
experiments and to reactionary dis-L 
plays of prejudice than to really use- 
ful legislation. * * * A government 
must have organs ; it cannot act in- 1 
organically by masses. It must have 
a law-making body; it can no more 
make laws through its voters than it 
can make law through its news- 
papers." (Quoted in the 1911 edition J 
of Oberholtzer's " Referendum in 
America.") 

TWO GREAT FALLACIES. 

There are two great fallacies underlying the 
theory of the Initiative and Referendum: — 
(1) That a community which, through in- 



Initiative and Referendum. 69 

difference, incompetency, or corruption, fails to 
elect honest and capable Legislative Representa- 
tives, will wisely perform the infinitely more 
complex and delicate function of passing Laws 
directly. 

(2) That the necessity for Laws being skill- 
fully drawn, carefully scrutinized, and thorough- 
ly debated, considered and formulated, before 
being presented for passage, can be ignored. 

From these fallacies follow the inevitable 
evils which condemn the system as being un- 
sound and even vicious, both logically and as the 
results of actual experience. 



Switzerland's Experience. 



"CIRCUMSTANCES ALTER CASES." 

Another fallacy of the advocates of Direct 
Legislation is the assumption that what might 
suit one community under certain conditions 
and surrounded by certain environments, would 
necessarily suit all other communities. "Sam 
Slick's" Old Judge never gave utterance to a 
more profound dictum than that " circum- 
stances alter cases." But the Initiative-Refer- 
endumites ignore this universal judicial and 
political experience. They say: The Initiative 
and Referendum is a success in Switzerland ; — 
atlhough (speaking in a merely incidental man- 
ner), it is not — therefore it would be a success 
in America. That does not necessarily follow. 
But- 

In the first place, the alleged success of the 
Initiative and Referendum in Switzerland is a 
very open question at the best. In the past, the 
simple Referendum, under conditions which then 
existed, and in the absence of any historic train- 
ing in the Representative system as we under- 
stand it in America, has undoubtedly served a 
satisfactory purpose in securing a popular demo- 

70 



Initiative and Referendum. 71 

cratic government. But social and economic 
conditions are now changing in Switzerland, as 
elsewhere, and it is now being found that the 
Referendum is no longer as beneficially effective 
as it was when the simple-minded graziers and 
small peasant proprietors held the government 
of the Republic in the hollow of their hands. 

As to the Initiative — nothing good can be 
said of it. The experience with the Federal 
Initiative during the score of years it has been 
in operation has not only been disappointing 
and unsatisfactory, but it has caused grave fears 
in the minds of some of the most enlightened 
and patriotic statesmen of Switzerland that it 
may cause the destruction of the Republic as a 
well-governed and orderly democracy. 

But even though the Initiative and Refer- 
endum were a success in Switzerland, — which 
it is not — that would not be proof that it is 
adapted to America, with its entirely different 
history and traditions, its different geograph- 
ical, social, economic, commercial and political 
conditions, — and also its very different system 
of government, notwithstanding the fact that 
both countries are Republics. 

PROF. OBERHOLTZER'S WARNING. 

In concluding his masterly work, "The 
Referendum in America," Prof. Oberholtzer 



72 Initiative and Referendum. 

utters this warning against looking to Switzer- 
land or any other foreign country for political 
experiments, instead of to our ow r n history and 
experience, — and he is speaking with special 
reference to the Initiative and Referendum: 

u * * * ]^ j- n^xitil we are convinced 
that the evils which have developed 
in our political life, and which are 
putting the virtue of our civil insti- 
tutions to so sore a test, are induced 
by the system rather than by the in- 
herent shortcomings of men in democ- 
racies, should we be willing to turn 
from the course which history and ex- 
perience have marked out for us. To 
inject into our heritage to-day, prin- 
ciples and political forms which trace 
another lineage, would result no more 
happily than the French effort at the 
end of the eighteenth century to dis- 
card history, and lay the foundations 
of the future on strange lines. Every 
empirical sentiment, and all the 
teachings of modern science, combine 
to bring home to reasoning men this 
one great fact which will live as long 
as the world lasts and human govern- 
ment endures. " 

WHY SWITZERLAND ADOPTED THE I. & R. 

Prof. A. Lawrence Lowell, President .of 
Harvard University, is recognized in Europe as 



Initiative and Referendum. 73 

in this country as one of the leading and most 
trustworthy of American authorities on for- 
eign governments and political parties. In his 
" Governments and Parties in Continental 
Europe" he explains how the Initiative and 
Referendum became fixed in the governmental 
system of Switzerland. He says it was because 
of the lack of a native representative system. 
It is curious that in Switzerland, almost alone 
among the countries north of the Alps, repre- 
sentative government did not rise spontaneously. 
The delegates to the Diet of the Old Confedera- 
tion were not representatives, but were like 
ambassadors, and they could not finally decide 
questions, but had to report to their States. The 
delegates were commissioned simply to hear 
propositions, and to take them "ad referendum," 
that is, the3^ had to refer them to their Cantonal 
authorities, and report the opinion of the latter 
on the matter to the next session of the Diet, 
unless the Canton instructed its deputies to 
take it again "ad referendum." The modern 
form is different, but Prof. Lowell says that 
the real foundation of the belief in the right of 
the people to take a direct part in legislation, 
lay in the defective condition of the representa- 
tive system. Nor is this surprising. Up to the 
end of the last century the Swiss had no experi- 
ence of representative government. The result 



74 Initiative and Hefekendum. 

was that wlien representative institutions were 
copied from other countries after the French 
Revolution, the Swiss were not accustomed to 
them, and met with two difficulties. In the first 
place, they did not know how to provide the 
necessary checks and balances, and they set up 
single chambers with absolute powers; and, in 
the second place, they had not learned to make 
those chambers reflect public opinion, 

PROF. LOWELL'S ADVERSE OPINION. 

While Prof. Lowell gives a guarded approval 
of the Referendum under Swiss conditions, he 
emphatically condemns the Initiative even in 
that country. He says: "The Initiative has 
not been established in the Confederation a 
sufficient length of time to test its real impor- 
tance, but it has not been found effective even 
for ordinary laws, in the Cantons where it has 
long existed. * * * It is certain that the new 
Federal Initiative in its actual form has been 
the cause of great anxiety." 

After a most exhaustive study and examina- 
tion, Prof. Lowell comes to the conclusion that 
the Initiative in practice "has not proved of 
value. * * * The conception is bold, but it is not 
likely to be of any great use to mankind; if in- 
deed, it does not prove to be merely a happy 
hunting-ground for extremists and fanatics." 






Initiative and Referendum. 75 

As to the use of the Referendum and Initia- 
tive in America, Prof. Lowell says that the 
Referendum applied to ordinary statutes is in- 
consistent with our polity, and could not be en- 
grafted without altering its very nature. "The 
Referendum in America would impose on the 
voters a far more difficult task than it does in 
Switzerland. * * * The Initiative has not been a 
success even in Switzerland, and there is no rea- 
son to suppose it would work better elsewhere." 

HOW SWITZERLAND DIFFERS FROM THE U. S. 

On April 14, 1911, the American Minister to 
Switzerland, Hon. Lauritz S. Swenson, wrote a 
most informative letter to the Hon. James A. 
Tawney, of Minnesota, descriptive of the condi- 
tions in Switzerland, and explanatory o f the 
workings of the Initiative and Referendum in 
that country. (Republished in the Cong. Rec- 
ord, Aug. 19, 1911.) He thus shows the great 
difference between the Swiss and the American 
systems of government: 

"It is important to bear in mind 
that the national legislature elects the 
Federal Executive (the President) as 
well as the Federal judiciary, and 
that no veto power can be exercised 
by the Executive, nor can any judic- 
ial power question the constitution- 



76 Initiative and Eeferendum. 

ality of its statutes. The Executive, 
not being elected by the people, can- 
not as their direct representative be 
expected to counterbalance the power 
of the legislature, which elects him. 
Only by means of the referendum, or 
' people's veto/ can a negative be in- 
terposed. This is the situation also in 
the Cantons. " 

" Conditions in Switzerland differ 
widely from ours socially, commer- 
cially, industrially, politically, and 
geographically. Here is an estab- 
lished society extending back over 
hundreds of years. Institutions are 
more stable, and the people are more 
conservative and cautious by training 
and tradition. The population is 
largely composed of rural freehold- 
ers, and there is not a continuous in- 
flux of immigrants of all kinds who 
in short order become voters. Natur- 
alization is not easily acquired in 
Switzerland. To become a citizen of 
the Confederation a foreigner must 
be admitted to citizenship in the com- 
mune and the Canton. The com- 
munes possess property, the proceeds 
from which are distributed in some 
way or other among its citizens. An 
applicant for the privilege of becom- 
ing a ' burger' must accordingly pay 
for it — in most cases quite a respect- 
able amount. He then feels that he 



Initiative and Referendum. ^ 77 

has a property interest in the com- 
munity, and will naturally help to 
safe-guard it against any radical in- 
terference. * * * Political questions 
are less complex, and the voters have 
closer personal knowledge of the con- 
ditions under discussion, owing to the 
smallness of the country. The voters 
are, as a rule, more conservative than 
their legislators. 

" Switzerland has a government 
for a simple people and a small coun- 
try. The population of Switzerland 
is ca. 3,800,000. Its area is about 
16,000 square miles; that of Minne- 
sota ca. 83.000 square miles." 

MINISTER 8WEN8ON POINTS OUT DRAWBACKS. 

Minister Swenson points out the serious 
drawbacks to the Initiative and Referendum in 
'the most democratic country in Europe" and 
the one country in the world where it ought to 
be a success if it could be anywhere. He goes 
on to say : 

" Notwithstanding the apparently 
favorable conditions under which the 
Swiss initiative and referendum have 
operated, the practical workings of 
the system have brought out many 
drawbacks. 

"It is said to be the weapon in the 
hands of the minority to keep up a 



78 Initiative and Refebendum. 

constant political agitation; and ow- 
ing to the large abstention from vot- 
ing, it is not the people, but a relative- 
ly small part of the electoral body 
that rejects or enacts a law. A ma- 
jority of the legislature, representing 
a majority of the electors, may pass a 
law, and a minority of the voters may, 
on a referendum, defeat the expressed 
will of the majority. And the people 
will time and again reelect the law- 
makers whose measures they have 
thus rejected— and repeat the per- 
formance of setting their work aside 
by a decided minority vote. In some 
communes it has happened that only 
19, 14, and as low as 10 per cent of the 
voters have participated in a referen- 
dum election. * * * 

u* * * j£ j s ur g e( j against the sys- 
tem under discussion that it is an ap- 
peal from calm deliberation to preju- 
dice, and spasmodic, artificial senti- 
ment. Also that the people have not 
the facilities, leisure, or will to study 
legislation as a legislative body of 
competent persons does. Then, too, 
it lessens the sense of responsibility 
on the part of the legislator." 

COMPULSORY VOTING IN SWITZERLAND. 

As everywhere else, the Initiative and Refer- 
endum means in Switzerland the Rule of the 



Initiative and Refekendtjm. 79 

Minority. It has been suggested in America that 
to make the people vote on propositions, voting 
should be made compulsory. This has been tried 
in Switzerland, but it has not been successful: 
from 20 to 30 per cent of the voters cast blank 
ballots. The following is from an official report 
to the State Department from the American 
Vice-Consul at Berne (Switzerland), Leo. J. 
Frankenthal, in 1908, and presented to the 
Senate by Mr. La Follette, and printed as Sen. 
Doc. 126, 61st Cong., 1st Sess. : 

"Voting is obligatory on Cantonal 
matters in the Cantons Zurich, 
Schaffhausen, St. Gallen, Aargan, 
and Thurgau. These Cantons show 
average votes of from 70 to 80 per 
cent; but the obligatory measure is 
not rigorously enforced. Small fines 
are imposed upon people failing to 
vote unless an adequate excuse is 
made. This includes illness in the 
family, mourning for a relative, ab- 
sence, birth in the family, etc. St. 
Gallen goes further than its neighbors 
and excuses the parent and god-par- 
ent from the duty of voting if their 
presence is necessary at a Christen- 
ing. * * * There is considerable objec- 
tion in many parts of Switzerland to 
obligatory voting. * * * You may 
force a voter to the polling place, 



80 Initiative and Referendum. 

but you cannot prevent him from 
casting a blank or a mutilated ballot. 
This refers, naturally, to referendum 
measures and not to the election of 
persons. Let us refer to the statistics 
of the Canton of Zurich, which is the 
most populous of those in which ob- 
ligatory voting is in force. Of recent 
laws voted upon in this Canton in the 
last few years the following figures 
are taken at random: 1906, law con- 
cerning a change in certain communal 
boundaries, 10,744 blank or mutilated 
ballots out of 59,538; law concerning 
the right of voting, number of inhab- 
itants in electoral districts, etc., 11,380 
blank or mutilated ballots out of 75,- 
504; law concerning protection of 
game, 5,374 blank or mutilated bal- 
lots out of 71,933. . . . There is 
no question but what the Swiss in 
general are fatigued by the frequency 
with which they are called to vote." 

E. Y. Raynolds, in an article in the "Yale 
Review," November, 1895, on "Referendum 
and Other Forms of Direct Democracy in Swit- 
zerland," says: 

"Many cantons declare voting a 
duty, and some back up the declara- 
tion by fining those who fail in this 
duty. In Zurich this is regulated by 
the Communes, so that some of the 



Initiative and Referendum. 81 

citizens are free to remain away from 
the polls, while others abstain at their 
peril. One result of the compulsory 
law is seen in the large proportion of 
blank ballots cast. In Zurich it is 
often the case that more than twenty 
per cent., and sometimes more than 
thirty per cent., of the ballots are 
blank." 

The truth is that the Swiss people are weary 
of their many elections under the Initiative and 
Referendum. There is a saying in Switzerland 
that the polling-booths are open as often as the 
churches. Were it not f o v the smallness of the 
country and the peculiar social and economic 
conditions, demoralization or the drv-rot would 
result from the Direct system of government. 

The London " Spectator," of August 25, 
1894, in an article on " Swiss Referendum and 
the People's Will," said: 

" Weighed by its results, the ' right of 
initiative' has still to justify its ex- 
istence. True, it enables fifty thou- 
sand well meaning voters to propose a 
new law for the consideration of their 
fellow-citizens; it also enables fad- 
dists and fanatics who by hook or 
crook can collect the needful signa- 
tures, to advertise their schemes and 
theories at the public expense. . . . 



82 Initiative and Refebendum. 

Moreover, the multiplication of elec- 
tions and 'votations' is a serious evil. 
* * * The oftener people are re- 
quired to vote the less disposed they 
seem to profit by the privilege." 

Compulsory voting failing to bring out the 
people, a new scheme is being tried. M. W. 
Hazeltine, in an article in the " North American 
Review", May 17, 1907, says: 

"In two of the cantons an effort 
has been made to bring about serious 
discussion by providing that, when 
citizens meet at the polls, a debate 
shall take place before the voting be- 
gins. It is noticed, however, that 
when the presiding officer asks if any 
one wishes to speak, no one ever re- 
sponds. In other words, you can 
bring a horse to the water, but you 
can't make him drink. " 

«*#.-• j]ven in the cantons, where 
it has long existed, and is applicable 
even to ordinary laws, it has not been 
found effective. 

" * * * Certainly it has not yet 
developed much efficiency in Switzer- 
land. * * * The conception of the 
initiative may be bold, but those who 
have observed the institution longest 



Initiative and Referendum. 83 

and studied it most carefully pro- 
nounce it unlikely to be of any great 
use to mankind. ' ' 

WHAT A BELGIAN ECONOMIST SAYS. 

Twenty years ago the Belgian Chamber 
(Parliament) considered the advisability of es- 
tablishing the Swiss Initiative and Referendum, 
but, after investigation and deliberation, de- 
clined to adopt it. The most authoritative Bel- 
gian work on the subject is by Prof. Simon 
Deploige, who in 1892 published the results of 
his personal observations of the working of the 
Referendum in Switzerland. He states it as a 
fact that it is the Parliamentary Opposition 
which wants the Referendum in Switzerland; 
"the Majority, on the contrary, whatever its 
political complexion, wishes to be rid of it. ' ' He 
quotes a prominent member of the Swiss Parlia- 
ment, M. Zemp, as saying: "I should like to 
see the Referendum completely suppressed, and 
above all, I want no compulsory Referendum. 
As to the popular Initiative, I dread it as a sort 
of legislative dynamite. In a word, the so-called 
rights of the people seem to me to be nothing 
more than democratic clap-trap." 

In giving this quotation, Prof. Deploige 
says: "In less picturesque terms, most of the 
speakers of the majority (of the Swiss Parlia- 
ment) expressed the same sentiments ; and some 



84 Initiative and RefekendtjM. 

months after the discussion, M. Numas Droz 
(Ex-President of the Swiss Republic) re-echoed 
them in a long article in the " Revue Swisse." 
And further on the Belgian observer adds: 
"Droz is a most inveterate opponent of the 
popular Initiative." 

Summing the matter up, Prof. Deploige 
says: 

"It is a little ridiculous to talk of 
legislation by the people when more 
than one-half the citizens refuse to 
exercise their legislative rights." 
Commenting on the compulsory vot- 
ing system, and the consequent great 
number of blank ballots, M. Deploige 
says: "The experiment of the demo- 
crats cannot be said to have met with 
success. If they wish to avoid com- 
plete failure, they must do two things, 
and do them quickly. They must find 
a better method of direct legislation, 
and secondly they must confine the 
Referendum to a small number of 
votes" (measures). (P. 290.) 

The final conclusion of M. Deploige as to the 
Swiss Referendum is that "its method is defect- 
ive and its results questionable." 

As to the Initiative, M. Deploige quotes a 
Swiss statesman, M. Borgeaud: "The evil is 
that in this case a law proceeds from powers that 



Initiative axd Referendum. 85 

are anonymous and irresponsible. * * * This 
law may be drawn up behind closed doors, or 
around the council board of some committee, 
who are then of as much importance as the regu- 
lar government." M. Droz gives exactly the 
same objection to the Initiative. 

Hon. Arthur Sherburne Hardy. ex-Minister 
of the United States to Switzerland, says, that 
"the experience of Switzerland cannot be made 
the argument for the adoption of the Refer- 
endum or Initiative in the United States is 
generally admitted by Continental students of 
the system." 

M. Naville, a Swiss publicist, says that "the 
large number of abstentions proves that it is not 
the people, but a relatively small part of the 
electoral body which accepts or rejects a Law; 
and that it is ridiculous to suppose that each 
citizen can form a just and accurate opinion 
upon the Laws submitted to him." 

In Switzerland if a measure is rejected it is 
sometimes initiated again: this is sometimes re- 
peated by the partisans of the measure: then the 
people, becoming: tired of resisting, will allow 
the measure to become a Law. by default. One 
writer says that "the independent and con- 
scientious voters of Switzerland who have not 
had time to examine the Laws usually refrain 
from voting." Yet the far-fetched claim is 






86 Initiative and Referendum. 

made by the advocates of the Initiative and 
Referendum that non-voters are to be classed 
as having acquiesced in the result of the vote. 

THE INITIATIVE A FAILURE. 

As to the working of the Initiative in Swit- 
zerland, we here give the testimony of Prof. W. 
Oechsli, of Zurich, Switzerland. This evidence 
is recent, it being taken from an article in the 
" Quarterly Review" (London), April, 1911. 
Prof. Oechsli confines his studv to his own coun- 
try, with its unique social, economic and polit- 
ical institutions, and he frankly speaks well of 
the Referendum as an instrument of popular 
government there. But he stoutly opposes the 
Initiative even for Switzerland. He says: 

"If our judgment of the Referen- 
dum is, on the whole, distinctly in its 
favor, practical experience of the pop- 
ular Initiative, which is usually, 
though wrongly, coupled with it, 
points to a different conclusion. The 
Referendum is a right enjoj^ed by the 
whole people ; the Initiative is a right 
of individuals or minorities. And it 
goes beyond mere liberty, for it en- 
ables a minority to put compulsion on 
a whole people, forcing it to occupy 
itself with proposals for which it has 
given no mandate. It is in the nature 



Initiative and Referendum. 87 

of things that the Initiative is chiefly 
used by persons who are either con- 
sumed by a passion for reforming the 
world or consider themselves inade- 
quately represented by the Govern- 
ment." 

Prof. Oeclisli gives a number of Initiative 
measures, and he says that "most of the pro- 
posals thus submitted to the popular vote were of 
questionable utility." And he concludes with 
this emphatic indictment of the Initiative: 

"These meagre results of twenty 
years of Initiative were surely not 
worth the constant disturbance in 
which the would-be benefactors of 
both parties have kept the country. 
The really dangerous proposals have 
failed. But the fact that an institution 
has not as yet been able to do much 
damage is no reason for praising; it. 
It has been rightly said that the Ref- 
erendum signifies democracy, the Ini- 
tiative demagogy. Fortunately, the 
Initiative finds its corrective in the 
Referendum, the individual will of 
groups in the common will of the "Peo- 
ple. If Switzerland is threatened by 
internal dangers, they will not come 
from the Referendum, but rather 
from the extravagant rig*ht of com- 
pulsion which the Initiative confers 



88 Initiative and Referendum. 

on the extremest minorities as against 
the majority of the nation. " 

EX-PRESIDENT DROZ CONDEMNS THE INITIATIVE. 

Probabty the best-known public man of 
Switzerland is M. Numa Droz, ex-President of 
the Republic, and for twenty years a member of 
the Federal Council, the highest branch in the 
Swiss system of government. M. Droz is often 
quoted in favor of the Referendum; but those 
favorable views appear to have been consider- 
ably modified, and he has grave doubts as to the 
applicability of the Swiss system to countries 
under different conditions. As to the Initiative, 
he utterly condemns it. In the " Contemporary 
Review" (London), of November, 1895, M. 
Droz said: 

"It is now generally agreed that 
the popular initiative might at any 
time place the country in very consid- 
erable danger. From the moment 
that the regular representatives of 
the people have no more to say in the 
matter than an irresponsible commit- 
tee drawing up articles in a bar par- 
lor, it is clear that the limits of sound 
democracy have been passed jand that 
the reign of demagogy has begun. 
The shaping of a wise constitution 
must always be a matter of weighing 
and balancing. It cannot be permit- 



Initiative and Befeeendum. 89 

ted that the gravest decisions should 
be the work of impulse or surprise. 
The generally adopted system of two 
chambers and of two or three read- 
ings for every bill, is a recognition of 
this fact. It cannot be denied that the 
Swiss people have shown a want of 
wisdom in adopting a system of ini- 
tiative which places all our institu- 
tions at the mercy of any daring at- 
tempt instigated by the demagogue, 
and favored by precisely such circum- 
stances as should rather incline us to 
take time for reflection." 



The Muddle in Oregon. 



A WARNING TO OTHER STATES. 

Of course the Referendum as applied to 
Constitutions and certain Legislative Acts is a 
very old system in America ; but Oregon has the 
doubtful distinction of being the first State to 
provide for the amendment of its Constitution 
through the Initiative. That was in 1902. Eight 
per cent of the voters can propose not only a 
Law but a Constitutional Amendment, and 5 
per cent can demand a Referendum. In eight 
years the small clique of Single Taxers in com- 
bination with the Socialists and other bands of 
extremists and f addists, have succeeded in tying 
the Constitution of Oregon into a knot, neces- 
sitating the use of a judicial but autocratic 
knife to cut it. In other words, the Supreme 
Court itself has, it is claimed, been compelled 
to practically legislate, and to render dicta which 
are logically at variance with the doctrine of the 
" sovereignty of the people," so as to bring order 
out of chaos. 

The combined vote — yea and nay — on the 
proposition to incorporate the Initiative and 

90 



Initiative axd Referendum. 91 

Referendum into the Constitution was only 
67 r 692 - 72 per cent of the total vote of the 
State. Owing to agitation on the Woman's 
Suffrage question — and there were organiza- 
tions opposed to as well as in favor of female 
votes — and as to the liquor traffic, the vote was 
then and generally has been larger in Oregon 
on Initiative and Referendum propositions than 
in other States; but there are now indications 
that the people of Oregon are tiring of their 
political toy, and the tendency is to cast a 
smaller vote. 

It is sometimes said that the people would 
rarely use the Initiative and Referendum. That 
all depends. In a State like South Dakota that 
might be true : in a State like Oregon, which is 
the paradise of organized cranks, intent on en- 
forcing their crude minority ideas on an unap- 
preciative majority, the experience is the other 
way. Oregon "went the whole hog" on the In- 
itiative and Referendum in 1902; in 1904 only 
two propositions were submitted under it; in 
1906 there were 11; in 1908 there were 19; in 
1910 there were 32, besides 131 candidates for 
the unfortunate people of Oregon to vote for! 
It took a booklet of 202 pages, — not counting 
the index — to officially set forth the 32 propo- 
sitions. It is said that some of the voters of 
Oregon have become so expert that they voted 



w\ 



92 Initiative and Refebendum. 

on all the 32 propositions and the 131 candidates 
in exactly 2 1-2 minutes, by the watch! 

SINGLE TAXERS BACK OF IT. 

The Single Taxers, led by that remarkable 
enthusiast, Mr. W. S. U'Ren, were the original 
promoters and are now the mainstay of the In- 
itiative and Referendum in Oregon. The story 
of how Mr. U'Ren got the Initiative and Refer- 
endum engrafted onto the Constitution of Oregon 
has been often told by magazine writers. Fol- 
lowing is his own account, taken from the official 
Report of the Single Tax Conference, held at 
New York, November 19-20, 1910, under the 
auspices of the Joseph Fels Commission, — 
pages 21 and 22 : 

"Mr. W. S. U'Ren told of his ex- 
perience as a Single Tax propagan- 
dist before he learned that mere prop- 
aganda is not the line of least resist- 
ance. 'I read "Progess and Pover- 
ty" in 1882/ he said, 'and I went just 
as crazy over the Single Tax idea as 
any one else ever did. I knew I want- 
ed the Single Tax, and that was about 
all I did know. I thought I could get 
it by agitation, and was often dis- 
gusted with a world that refused to be 
agitated for what I wanted. In 1882 
(sic) I learned what the Initiative 
and Referendum is, and then I saw 



Initiative and Referendum. 93 

the way to the Single Tax. SO I 
QUIT TALKING SINGLE TAX, 

not because I was any the less in favor 
of it but because I saw that the first 
job was to get the Initiative and Ref- 
erendum, so that the people, indepen- 
dently of the Legislature, may get 
what they want rather than take what 
the Legislature will let them have. 
We have laid the foundation in Ore- 
gon, and our Legislature can not 
draw a dead line against the people. 

" 'We have cleared the way for a 
straight Single Tax fight in Oregon. 
xVll the work we have clone for Direct 
Legislation has been done with the 
Single Tax in view, but we have not 
talked Single Tax because that was 
not the question before the house.' " 

In another speech at the Conference, Mr. 
U'Ren said, in explaining the methods adopted 
in Oregon by the Single Taxers: "We do not 
make speaking campaigns." In endorsing the 
work of the Fels Fund Commission for Direct 
Legislation, Mr. U'Ren " exhibited the Oregon 
ballot used at the November election (1910), on 
which were printed the names of more than one 
hundred candidates and 32 measures, and said 
that the time taken by the voters in voting on 
candidates and measures was from 2 1-2 to six 
minutes." (P. 14.) 



94 Initiative and Referendum. 

The majority of the people of Oregon are op- 
posed to the Single Tax. They have shown that 
by their votes. The first time was in 1908. In 
order to make the medicine agreeable to the tax- 
payers, wholesale exemptions were declared for, 
but the printed official affirmative argument con- 
fessed that "the proposed Amendment is a step 
in the direction of the Single Tax." For the 
Amendment there were cast 32,066 votes, and 
against it 60,871 — almost two to one against it. 
But the Single Taxers were not discouraged; 
they knew the potentialities of the Initiative and 
Referendum in enforcing the will of a deter- 
mined, persistent, w^ell-organized, and splendidly 
financed minority, on an unalert, unorganized 
majority, weary with constant political turmoil, 
and unwilling to bother about studying and dis- 
criminating between the numerous propositions 
submitted — 32 in this case, along with 131 can- 
didates. What is known as the Amendment for 
" County Home Rule in Taxation," under which 
the Single Taxers expect to reach their goal, is 
the proposition on which the Single Taxers of 
Oregon united, under the adroit work of the Fels 
Fund Commission. The real object of this 
Amendment was obscured by dextrous phrase- 
ology — a recourse to which the Initiative and 
Referendum peculiarly lends itself. This 
Amendment was so drawn that it appeared as 



Initiative and Referendum. 95 

if its primary object was to prohibit the imposi- 
tion of a "poll or head tax." The first sentence 
read: "No poll or head tax shall be levied or 
collected in Oregon. ' ' As a matter of fact, there 
was no poll or head tax in the State, that having 
been abolished by the Legislature in 1907. At 
the end of the Amendment were these words: 
* * * "But the people of the several counties 
are hereby empowered and authorized to regu- 
late taxation and exemptions within their sev- 
eral counties, subject to any general law which 
may be hereafter enacted/' — of course, through 
the same old dodge of the Initiative and Refer- 
endum. It should be observed that there is not 
a word specifically about the Single Tax. Al- 
ready one County — or rather a small minority 
of the voters — has initiated proceedings for 
the Single Tax under it ; but here comes in one 
of the beautiful features of the Direct Legis- 
lation system : The Secretary of State of Oregon 
has felt it to be his sworn duty to refuse to file 
the Initiative petition on the ground that owing 
to legal defects the Amendment is not self- 
executing. The petitioners have brought man- 
damus proceedings to require this Initiative 
proposition to be placed on the ballot at the 
State election of 1912. This radical change in 
the taxing system of the State was fastened 
upon Oregon by a vote of 44,171 for, to 42,127 



96 Initiative and EefekenditM.- 

against — the majority being only 2,044. The 
total vote — for and against — was 72 per cent 
of the total vote of the State, and the affirmative 
vote was only 37 1-2 per cent of the vote cast 
for Governor at that election. 

STATE UNIVERSITY JEOPARDIZED. 

In the last six years there have been three 
Referendum petitions filed against appropria- 
tions by the Legislature of Oregon for the State 
University. The first two petitions were de- 
feated by a small majority at the election, but in 
each case the appropriations were held up for 
more than a year and a half , and the University 
would have been compelled to close its doors 
had not the professors agreed for the last six 
months preceding each of the elections to work 
without salary unless and until the appropria- 
tions became available. The amounts appropri- 
ated for the University were not large, — in the 
first instance only $62,500 a year for two years, 
and in the second case $125,000 a year for two 
years. At the time of writing this booklet, legal 
proceedings are pending contesting the validity 
of the third Referendum petition against the 
legislative appropriation. This petition was in- 
stituted by citizens of rival towns to that in 
which the institution is placed. These people 
are said to have employed a professional agitator 



Initiative axd Referendum. 97 

and circulator of Initiative and Referendum 
petitions at a price per name! The legal pro- 
ceedings referred to are an equity suit, and a 
large amount of evidence has been taken by the 
court. It is asserted that it has been disclosed 
that there have been comparatively but few 
genuine signatures on the Referendum petitions; 
that it has been shown that the circulators of 
the petitions filled in several thousand names in 
their own handwriting, in some cases taking the 
names from old directories, and even signing 
the names of people who had been dead for sev- 
I years! 

CRUDE AND CONFLICTING LAWS. 

That legislation under the Initiative and 
Referendum will be crude and conflicting is not 
only obvious on its face, but is the demonstration 
of experience. One measure had to be rejected 
by the Oregon authorities because of the absence 
of an enacting clause — and the same difficulty 

Topping out in other propositions. Two ab- 
solutely conflicting Laws were passed under the 
Initiative and Referendum at the same time hi 
regard to catching salmon in the Columbia River. 
One of these Laws prohibited catching fish by 
wheels, and the other by nets. One way was the 
custom in one part of the River, and the other 
way in a different part, and the followers of each 



98 Initiative and Referendum. 

desired to have a monopoly of the business. The 
result was that the entire important industry of 
salmon fishing on the Columbia was prohibited. 
Fortunately, the despised Legislature came to 
the rescue. 

CONSTITUTIONAL MUDDLE. 

It is impossible in the space available to even 
enumerate the instances and phases of the seri- 
ous Constitutional entanglements caused by the 
Initiative and Referendum in Oregon, both as 
regards Statutory Law and as to the Constitu- 
tion itself. In 1910 an Amendment was adopted 
by a vote of only 69 per cent of the total vote of 
the State — and by only 5,139 majority of the 
votes cast on the proposition — making certain 
changes in the judicial system and in the pro- 
cedure of the Supreme Court. Such a high legal 
authority as Mr. Frederick V. Holman, of Port- 
land (ex-President of the State Bar Association 
and a Regent of the State University), claims 
that this Amendment was so crudely drawn that 
there is a serious question whether trial by jury 
has not been abolished in Oregon by it. Not 
only so, but the Supreme Court has been given 
power to determine what verdict shall be given 
in a criminal trial ; under the same section there 
is also a provision — in effect — that no judg- 
ment, however unjust, can be re-examined by any 



Initiative and Refekendum. 99 

court ; and the same amendment also allows the 
Supreme Court to find a defendant guilty of an 
offense for which he had not been indicted ! This 
muddling Amendment was placed in the Consti- 
tution of Oregon by less than 38 per cent of the 
total number of men who voted the same day for 
Governor. 

The Supreme Court of Oregon has expe- 
rienced some difficulty in construing Initiative 
Amendments, and it has found it necessary to 
practically amend some of these Amendments by 
its decisions, by supplying omissions and by in- 
terpolating provisions not contained in the 
Amendments themselves! 

Mr. Frank Foxcroft, in an article " Consti- 
tution Mending and the Initiative," in the " At- 
lantic Monthly", June, 1906, cites the case of 
Kadderly vs. Portland (44th vol. Oregon Re- 
ports.) The Supreme Court of Oregon said in 
that case: 

<<* * * pi rs t ? that laws pro- 
posed and enacted by the people un- 
der the initiative clause of the amend- 
ment 'are subject to the same consti- 
tutional limitations as other statutes, 
• and may be amended or repealed by 
the Legislature at will'; and, second, 
that the provision in the amendment 
to the effect that 'the veto power of 
the governor shall not extend to 



100 Initiative and Refekendum. 

measures referred to the people' 
must necessarily 'be confined to the 
measures which the legislature may 
refer, and cannot apply to acts upon 
which the referendum may be invok- 
ed by petition.' " 

The Court went on to say: 

" Unless the governor has the 
right to veto any act submitted to 
him, except such as the legislature 
may specially refer to the people, 
' one of the safeguards against hasty 
or ill-advised legislation which is 
• everywhere regarded as essential is 

removed.' " 

After citing a number of unsatisfactory re- 
sults under the Initiative Amendments of the 
Oregon Constitution, Mr. Frederick V. Holman 
said, in his speech as the President of the Ore- 
gon Bar Association, November 15, 1910: 

u* * * rpj ie CTVL $fty f these 
popular amendments of the Constitu- 
tion and other enactments have been 
such that they have been amended by 
the Courts— practically legislating 
amendments by decisions— to make 
these enactments workable. For- 
tunately, perhaps, these initiative 
amendments of the Constitution do 






INITIATIVE AXD KeFERENDUM. 101 

not provide against their amendment 
by judicial decisions." 

u* * * Having no established 
precedents in these innovations by the 
initiative and referendum powers in 
the Constitution, it is difficult to 
make them workable. It is somewhat 
like navigating a ship in the open sea 
without chart, compass or chronome- 
ter." 

In the case of Straw v. Harris, 54 Oregon, 
424, decided August 24, 1909, one of the main 
points decided was — That under the initiative 
and referendum amendments of the Constitution 
there are two separate and distinct law-making 
bodies, each equal, viz.: The Legislature and the 
people. The Court said: 

"By the adoption of the initiative 
and referendum into our Constitu- 
tion, the legislative department of the 
State is divided into two separate and 
distinct law-making bodies. There 
remains, however, as formerly, but 
one legislative department of the 
State. * * * The powers thus re- 
served to the people merely took from 
the Legislature the exclusive right to 
enact laws, at the same time, leaving 
it a co-ordinate legislative body with 
them. 



102 Initiative and Refekendum. 

"* * * Subject to the excep- 
tions enumerated in the Constitution, 
as amended, either branch of the leg- 
islative department, whether the peo- 
ple, or their representatives, may 
enact any law, and may even repeal 
any act passed by the other/' 

With irresistible logic Mr. Holman argues 
that the situation in Oregon under the Initiative 
and Referendum Constitution as the Supreme 
Court has felt compelled to construe it, is a dan- 
gerous one. He points out that the Legislature 
can repeal an Initiative Law, and vice versa; 
and that the Legislature might pass one law 
and the people under the Initiative and Refer- 
endum might pass another directly in conflict; 
and he enquires : What would be the result ? — 
for the Supreme Court has decided that each is 
equal as a law-making power. "It would be like 
the celebrated case of an irresistible force meet- 
ing an immovable body. Will not the Legisla- 
ture become as useless as a vermiform append- 
age is to a human being? It may have some 
functions, but it is apparently a menace. Would 
it not be well to cut it out before it becomes 
dangerous ?" 

In a masterly speech against the Initiative 
and Referendum delivered in the Ohio House 



Initiative and Referendum. 103 

of Representatives by the Hon. Carl F. Shuler, 
March 19, 1908, that gentleman said: 

"Some time ago I wrote to the 
mayors of ten towns in Oregon, and I 
received answers from six. Of the 
six, only one spoke in favor of the 
scheme, the other five being unfavor- 
able. Some were less severe in their 
denunciation, but all believed that it 
is not accomplishing what was ex- 
pected of it; that it is not so popular 
as it was; and that it is impossible 
for all the people to vote intelligently 
on all the questions to be submitted." 

Originally the Portland ' ' Oregonian, ' ? — 
which is one of the leading papers on the Pacific 
Coast — was in favor of the Initiative and Ref- 
erendum; but after observing its operations for 
several years it has come out in opposition. It 
declares that the system has "the effect prac- 
tically of abolishing Constitution and laws al- 
together. * * * The whole of this modern scheme 
of setting aside Constitution and laws, and of 
forcing legislation without debate or opportu- 
nity of amendment turns out badly, because it 
gives the cranks of the coimtry an opportunity 
which they have not self-restraint enough to 
forego. It was not intended that representative 



104 Initiative and Refeeendum. 

government should be abolished by the new sys- 
tem ; but it has been abolished by it. The situa- 
tion is the crank's paradise." 

Prof. Oberholtzer does not hesitate to say 
in the new edition of his work that the real in- 
tention of the " inventors" of the Oregon plan of 
the Initiative, Referendum and the Recall, is 
the establishment of Socialism. 



South Dakota. 

THE ORIGINAL INITIATIVE STATE. 

While Oregon was the first State to make the 
Initiative applicable to Constitutional Amend- 
ments, South Dakota was the first State to give 
its citizens the power to initiate Laws. This was 
done in 1898, and, as Prof. Oberholtzer observes 
("The Eeferendum in America") this change 
was "one of the most important that has ever 
been made in the American system of govern- 
ment." 

In South Dakota the people may initiate 
Laws for submission to popular vote upon the 
petition of five per cent of the "qualified electors 
of the State," and they may require a vote upon 
a Legislative Act upon the application of the 
same number of electors. 

Like most of the other claims in favor of the 
Initiative and Referendum, the assertion that it 



Initiative and Refekendum. 105 

has proved satisfactory in South Dakota is to be 
received with a ' l big bag of salt. ' ' But even were 
it true, it would only illustrate what ex-Presi- 
dent Roosevelt said in a speech at Phoenix, 
Arizona. March 20, 1911: "The principles of 
the Initiative and Referendum may or may not 
be adapted to the needs of a given State under 
given conditions; I believe they are useful in 
some communities and not in others." For in- 
stance: South Dakota is a purely agricultural 
State, with a very conservative population — 
naturally so for the reason that a large propor- 
tion of the people own the land on which they 
live, and are mainly native American or thrifty 
Teutonic. The Initiative and Referendum 
might be fairly successful in South Dakota but 
might be very harmful in a State like Ohio, or 
New York, or Illinois, where the conditions are 
altogether different. 

WHAT THE GOVERNOR SAYS. 

But, as a matter of fact, there is reason for 
grave doubt whether even South Dakota has 
done a wise thing in extending the Initiative 
and Referendum as far as it has done. In a 
speech to the citizens of Kansas, October, 1911, 
Gov. Vessey of South Dakota, uttered these 
warning words: 

"If Kansas adopts the Initiative 
and Referendum you must not expect 



106 Initiative and Referendum. 

that the millennium will be ushered 
in. Don't think for a minute that this 
system is a cure for all evils. It may 
cure some old evils, but certain I am 
that it brings on new evils which are 
very harmful to ,the State and its 
people. In the first place, it helps the 
scalawag as often as the good citizen, 
if not oftener. Every time a Law is 
passed to improve moral conditions, 
it is ref erended back to the people by 
the rag-tag element, and eighteen 
months must elapse before it goes 
into effect, even if by reason of the 
delay its opponents are not able to 
bring about its defeat. Also, it is ex- 
pensive. An unscrupulous politician 
in my State who wanted to get a cer- 
tain bill on the Statute books, started 
initiative petitions, and by paying 
ten cents for each signature got 
enough of them to compel the submis- 
sion of the measure at an election. 
He was defeated, but at a cost to the 
State of $150,000. The Initiative and 
Referendum doesn't work as smooth- 
ly as those who believe in it think it 
will." 

When G-ov. Vessey was elected, in 1910, his 
name was on a seven-foot ballot, one foot being 
devoted to the candidates and six feet to Initia- 
tive and Referendum propositions. 



A Few Closing Words. 



What the American people need is not more 
Laws and a new Constitution so much as a 
broader and deeper realization of their privi- 
leges and obligations as citizens of the Republic. 
The most flagrant crime in America today— a 
crime more harmful than even " graft*'— is the 
apathy and indifference of the average voter in 
regard to his duties as a citizen of the grandest. 
the freest, and the altogether most glorious coun- 
try under the sun. What we need is not a mere 
baptism, but a very flood of Civic Patriotism! 
More Laws and a new Constitution— however 
much they may be required— will not give that. 

As it is, most Americans are content to let 
politics be the exclusive vocation of the "poli- 
ticians." Thev do not "see anything in it ,? for 
themselves, and so they let the bosses and "the 
interests" run things : and then thev wonder whv 
things go wrong! Conditions are bad enough 
under the Representative plan: under the Ini- 
tiative and Referendum, as an established and 
universal system in the Constitutions of the 
States, and particularly in the Federal Constitu- 

107 






108 Initiative and Refebendum. 

tion ? there would be a grave likelihood that the 
French Commune would be a Sunday-school in 
comparison. 

We do not need any more of the Initiative 
and Referendum. The samples we have had are 
enough. They have demonstrated that the sys- 
tem is not only a failure as an effective and satis- 
factory instrument of Democratic government, 
but that it is full of vicious possibilities. The 
day that the Initiative and Referendum is en- 
grafted on the Federal Constitution— which God 
forbid— will be recorded in history as the begin- 
ning of the end of the American Republic. 

But the Initiative and Referendum will in 
due time be relegated to the limbo of discarded 
political nostrums ; and the Republic will live ;— 
and it will continue to grow in grandeur and to 
become more and more splendid as the land of 
ordered Liberty and true Democracy. 



Appendix. 



DANIEL WEBSTER ON "CONSTANT CLAMORERS." 

In 1833, Daniel Webster, in a speech in the United 
States Senate, gave utterance to the following outburst 
against "constant clamorers." The conditions to-day are 
so similar to those described by Webster as existing seventy- 
eight years ago, that the speech would be opportune if 
made at the present session of Congress: 

"There are persons who constantly clamor. 
They complain of oppression, speculation and 
the pernicious influence of accumulated wealth. 
They cry out loudly against all banks and cor- 
porations and all the means by which small 
capitals become united in order to produce im- 
portant and beneficial results. They carry on 
a mad hostility against all established institu- 
tions. They would choke up the fountains of 
industry and dry all its streams. In a country 
of unbounded liberty they clamor against op- 
pression. In a country of perfect equality they 
would move heaven and earth against privilege 
and monopoly. In a country where property is 
more equally divided than anywhere else they 
rend the air with shouting of agrarian doctrines. 
In a country where the wages of labor are high 
beyond all parallel the}' would teach the laborer 
that he is but an oppressed slave. Sir, what 
can such men want? What do they mean? 
They can want nothing, sir, but to enjoy the 
fruits of other men's labor. They can mean 
nothing but disturbance and disorder, the dif- 
fusion of corrupt principles and the destruction 
109 



110 Initiative, and Refekendum. 

of the moral sentiments and moral habits of 
society. A licentiousness of feeling and of ac- 
tion is sometimes produced by prosperity itself. 
Men cannot always resist the temptation to 
which they are exposed by the very abundance 
of the bounties of Providence and the very hap- 
piness of their own condition. ,, 

AN ANCIENT EXAMPLE. 

In an article entitled "Representative as Against Direct 
Government ,, in the "Atlantic Monthly" (October, 191 1) 
the Hon. Samuel W. McCall says: 

"Those who advocate the direct action of 
our great democracy might study with a good 
deal of profit the history of the little state 
(Athens) to which I have just been referring. 
No more brilliant people ever existed than the 
Athenian people. They had a genius for gov- 
ernment. The common man was able to 'think 
imperially/ Their great philosopher, Aristotle, 
could well speak of the Athenian as a political 
animal. They achieved a development in litera- 
ture and art which probably has never since been 
reached. They could boast of orators and phil- 
osophers to which those of no other nation can 
be compared. We marvel when we consider the 
surviving proofs of their civilization. But when 
they did away with all restraints upon their 
direct action in the making and enforcement of 
laws, in administering justice and in regulating 
foreign affairs, their greatness was soon brought 
to an end, and they became the victims of the 
most odious tyranny to which any people can 
be subjected, the tyranny that results from their 
own unrestrained and unbridled action. 

"It is said that the history of those distant 
times can present no useful precedent for our 
own guidance; but in what respect is human 



Initiative and Referendum. Ill 

nature different to-day? Whatever new stars 
our telescopes may have discovered, whatever 
new inventions may have been brought to light, 
and whatever advances may have been made in 
scientific knowledge, the mainsprings of human 
action are substantially the same to-day that 
they were in the time of the Greeks. We should 
be rash indeed to assume that we shall succeed 
where they failed, and that we can disregard 
their experience with impunity. ,, 

THE "FATHERS" KNEW THEIR BUSINESS. 

Discussing the deliberate choice by the framers of the 
Federal Constitution of the Representative over the Direct 
system of government, the Hon. Samuel W, McCall says 
("Atlantic Monthly/' October, 1911) : 

"The framers of our Constitution were en- 
deavoring to establish a government which 
should have sway over a great territory and a 
population already large and which they knew 
would rapidly increase. They were about to 
consummate the most democratic movement 
that had ever occurred on a grand scale in the 
history of the world. They well knew from the 
experiments of the past the inevitable limitations 
upon direct democratic government, and, being 
statesmen as well as democrats, they sought to 
make their government enduring by guarding 
against the excesses which had so often brought 
popular governments to destruction. They es- 
tablished a government which Lincoln called 'of 
the people, by the people, for the people/ and 
in order effectively to create it they adopted 
limitations which would make its continued 
existence possible. They knew that, if the gov- 
ernmental energy became too much diluted and 
dissolved, the evils of anarchy would result, and 
that there would follow a reaction to the other 



112 Initiative and Keferendum. 

extreme, with the resulting overthrow of popular 
rights. They saw clearly the line over which 
they might not pass in pretended devotion to the 
democratic idea without establishing govern- 
ment of the demagogue, by the demagogue, and 
for the demagogue, with the recoil in favor of 
autocracy sure speedily to follow; for they 
knew that the men of the race from which they 
sprang would not long permit themselves to be 
the victims of misgovernment, and that they 
would prefer even autocracy to a system under 
which the great ends of government should not 
be secured, or should be perverted. ,, 

"PURE" VS. "REPRESENTATIVE" DEMOCRACY. 

Prof. Garner, in his work "Introduction to Political 
Science/' thus differentiates between "Pure" and "Repre- 
sentative" Democracy : 

"Democracies are of two kinds — pure, or 
direct, and representative, or indirect. A pure 
democracy is one in which the will of the state 
is formulated and expressed directly and imme- 
diately through the people acting in their pri- 
mary capacity. A representative democracy is 
one in which the state will is ascertained and 
expressed through the agency of a small and 
select number, who act as the representatives of 
the people. A pure democracy is practicable 
only in small states, where the voting popula- 
tion may be assembled for purposes of legisla- 
tion and where the collective needs of the people 
are few and simple. In large and complex so- 
cieties, where the legislative wants of the people 
are numerous, the very necessities of the situa- 
tion make government by the whole body of 
citizens a physical impossibility." 



Initiative axd Referendum. 113 

Tucker, in his "Constitution of the United States" 
(p. 87 J, says that the Representative system "is the only 
practicable way by which a large country can give expres- 
sion to its will in deliberate legislation." 

In "Black's Constitutional Law," p. 28, the following 
distinction is drawn : 

"The system of government in the United 
States and in the several states is distinguished 
from a pure democracy in this respect, that the 
will of the people is made manifest through 
representatives chosen by them to administer 
their affairs and make their laws, and who are 
intrusted with defined and limited powers in that 
regard, whereas the idea of a democracy, non- 
representative in character, implies that the 
laws are made by the entire people acting in a 
mass-meeting or at least by universal and direct 
vote. 

"Representation is one of the very essentials 
of a republican form of government." 

In Xo. 48 of the "Federalist" (XII "Hamilton's 
Works," p. 28) Madison refers to a Democracy as * * * 

"where a multitude of people exercise in person 
the legislative functions, and are continually 
eoxpsed, by their incapacity for regular, delib- 
erate and concerted measures, to the intrigues 
of their executive magistrates ;" and to a repub- 
lic "where the executive magistracy is carefully 
limited both in the extent and in the duration 
of its power, and where the legislative power is 
exercised by an assembly * * * ." 

8* 



114 Initiative and Refekendtjm. 

In the debates in the convention held in New York on 
the adoption of the Constitution, Hamilton said: 

"It has been observed by an honorable 
gentleman that a pure democracy, if it were 
practicable, would be the most perfect govern- 
ment. Experience has proved that no position 
in politics is more false than this. The ancient 
democracies in which the people themselves 
deliberated never possessed one feature of good 
government. Their very character was tyranny ; 
their figure deformity. When they assembled 
the field of debate presented an ungovernable 
mob not only incapable of deliberation, but pre- 
pared for every enormity." 

John Marshall, in the Virginia Convention, said: 

"I shall ask the worthy member only, if the 
people at large, and they alone, ought to make 
laws and treaties? Has any man this in con- 
templation? You cannot exercise the powers of 
government personally yourselves. You must 
trust to agents. * * * 

"Can the whole aggregate community act 
personally? I apprehend that every gentleman 
will see the impossibility of this. Must they, 
then, not trust them to others? To whom are 
they to trust them but to their representatives, 
who are accountable for their conduct ?" 

"A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT." 

The late Chief Justice Fuller, of the U. S. Supreme 
Court, in delivering the opinion in re Duncan, 139 U. S. 
449, stated that: 

"By the Constitution, a republican form of 
government is guaranteed to every State in the 
Union, and the distinguishing feature of that 



Initiative and Referendum. 115 

form is the right of the people to choose their 
own officers for governmental administration, 
and pass their own laws in virtue of the legisla- 
tive power reposed in representative bodies, 
whose legitimate acts may be said to be those of 
the people themselves ; but, while the people are 
thus the source of political power, their govern- 
ments, National and State, have been limited by- 
written constitutions, and they have themselves 
thereby set bounds to their own power, as 
against the sudden impulses of mere majorities. " 

In his "Thoughts on Government/' which he addressed 
to the Virginians, John Adams said : 

"There is no good government but what is 
republican. " * * * "The only valuable part 
of the British Constitution at the time he wrote 
was, he declared, republican. " * * * "In a 
large society inhabiting an extensive country, 
it is impossible that the whole should assemble 
to make laws. The first necessary step then, is 
to depute power from the many to a few of 
the most wise and good." 

"THE GREATEST TRAGEDY OF CHRISTENDOM." 

On April 19, 191 1, the Cincinnati "Enquirer" con- 
tained the following remarkable editorial : 

"A pertinent illustration of the dangerous 
possibilities lying in the establishment and en- 
forcement of the referendum has been dug out 
of the pages of the long ago by a prominent Cin- 
cinnati attorney. Imbued with a modesty by 
no means in keeping with his attainments, he 
has plead for anonymity. Commenting upon an 
editorial which recently appeared in The En- 
quirer, which discussed at length, and freely, 
the modern tendencies of legislative bodies to- 



116 Initiative and Eeferendum. 

wards isms of all kinds, and notably those of 
popular election of United States Senators, the 
initiative and referendum and the heretical and 
viciously dangerous recall of Judges idea, the 
writer invites attention to the twenty-third 
chapter of St. Luke, the eighteenth chapter of 
St. John, as well as the co-ordinate chapters in 
the other of the four Gospels bearing upon the 
trial and crucifixion of the Nazarene. 

"The picture of the Galilean before the 
Roman Governor in the hall of judgment is one 
familiar to most of the civilized world. Flanked 
by the panoply and gorgeousness with which 
Rome surrounded her colonial Governors, and 
imbued with a sense of justice and a knowledge 
of the law, the mighty Pilate could find no fault 
with the humble Teacher who stood before him. 
But with the same cringing subservience and 
fear that would control and dominate Judges to- 
day if they were subject to the recall, he put 
the matter up to the surging mob that sur- 
rounded the helpless and inoffensive prisoner. 

"The referendum accomplished its ghastly 
purpose with a celerity and avidity that as- 
tonished even the martial and warlike represen- 
tative of the Caesars. One of the greatest 
tragedies of Christendom was the product of one 
of the earliest employments of the referendum. 
The Man of Peace had practiced no sedition, 
was guilty of no felony, but had simply taught a 
philosophy and gospel not in accordance with 
the practices and lives of the people among 
whom He lived. 

"Human nature changes not. Ochlocracy as 
established to-day, would demand the same 
sacrifice of life or principle. Reason and judg- 
ment are quickly swept to the four winds when 
passion or greed is inflamed. The fate of the 
Nazarene would be the fate of men and prin- 
ciples to-day w? r ^ the tenets of representative 



Initiative and Eeferendum. 117 

government broken down and discarded. The 
foundation upon which the fathers built this 
republic are still stanch and sound. The super- 
structure erected thereon has brought happiness 
and prosperity to a great people. Tampering 
with their splendid legacy will be but to invite 
unrest, distrust and possible disaster." 



LEGISLATIVE "CURE-ALLS.'' 

In an address delivered before the Chicago Civic Fed- 
eration, February 4, 191 1, Prof. J. Laurence Laughlin, 
head of the Department of Political Economy of the Univ- 
ersity of Chicago, said : 

"Is there not an unfortunate passion for 
trying to cure the ills of society by legislation? 
That is, we are asked to think it possible by 
legislation to change the character and nature 
of man. To change the external envelope of 
government by which we are surrounded is 
theoretically taken as a feasible means of chang- 
ing the nature, desires, and purposes of the in- 
dividual voter within the limits of a country. 
You might as well try to change iron into steel 
by changing the governors of the states contain- 
ing the iron-mines. Somehow or other we must 
get down to the causes which affect human na- 
ture itself ; we should spend less time on the 
scenery of the stage than on the men who are 
moving on it. This is the fundamental weak- 
ness of Socialism; that it hopes to recreate the 
world by changing the social system without 
changing the qualities of dear old human nature 
itself. It is the sign of a superficial man to put 
forward a nostrum sure to cure all the ills of 
body and soul. We have too many quacks in 
politics and social reform; we have too many 
persons proposing infallible remedies for all 
political and economic abuses — we might call 



118 Initiative and Referendum. 

them the 'Lydia Pinkhams of the social system/ 
To many, this might seem to be a sufficient rea- 
son for hesitancy in opening the door wide for 
rash legislation by the Initiative and Referen- 
dum. 

"No doubt all of us agree with the purposes 
of those who favor the Initiative and Referen- 
dum; but we wish in all candor to be sure that 
the means to carry out these purposes — the 
special laws — are sufficient for the desired end, 
Let me illustrate: The voters of Illinois have 
sent to Springfield some legislators so lacking 
in honesty, honor and loyalty to the people that 
we are a stench in the nostrils of the whole na- 
tion ; and honest men hang their heads in shame 
whenever Illinois politics are mentioned. Now 
every man here would like to wipe out this dis- 
grace. Can it be done by the Initiative and 
Referendum? Are we not compelled to answer 
that it can be done only if we assume that cor- 
rupt voters can be made honest by legislation? 
Such a result. I submit, cannot be accomplished 
by any act of laws ; you might as well try by law 
to require every man in Illinois to have blue 
eyes. Water will not rise higher than its 
source." 



"UTTERLY AND HOPELESSLY UNDEMOCRATIC." 

Criticizing the new Initiative — Referendum — Recall 
Constitution of Californit, and the method of its adoption, 
the New York "Times" (independent Democratic), of 
October 18, 191 1, said: 

"This new method of handling the basic 
law of the State is advocated in the name of 
democracy. In reality it is utterly and hopeless- 
ly undemocratic. While pretending to give 
greater rights to the voters, it deprives them of 
the opportunity effectively and intelligently to 



Initiative and Referendum. 119 

use their powers. They receive the right to vote 
much oftener and on a larger number of mat- 
ters than before, but the number and variety of 
the votes they are called on to cast does away 
with all chance of really using sense and dis- 
cretion as to all of them. The new method is 
proposed as a check on the machines. But the 
strength of the machines lies in the inattention 
and indifference of the voters, and the voters 
are sure in the long run to be more inattentive 
and indifferent in proportion to the number of 
the questions forced upon them at one time. 
When the machine managers get familiar with 
the working of the new method, they will work 
it for their own ends far more readily than they 
work the present method. The average voter, 
muddled and puzzled and tired by the impos- 
sible task of really understanding and deciding 
on a mass of matters, will give it up, and then 
the politicians will get in their fine work. 

'The remedy for the undoubted evils of 
machine politics is not in multiplying, confusing, 
and making more troublesome the duties of the 
voter, but in simplifying and restricting them 
and making the discharge of each of them 
more effective. So long as we make our political 
business so difficult that common men cannot, 
will not, and ought not to give to it the time 
and labor absolutely needed for success in it, 
so long there will be professionals to attend to 
it. It would be as easy to run the business of 
a big railway by leaving every detail of its 
managment to a vote of the shareholders as it 
will be to run the business of a State under the 
new system. And the results in the latter case 
will be as a mischievous as those in the former 
would be sure to be." 



120 Initiative and Referendum. 

GOV. O'NEAL, OF ALABAMA, ON THE I. & R. 

The following is taken from the Cincinnati "Enquirer" 
of December 8, 191 1 : 

"Denouncing the initiative, referendum and 
recall as 'dangerous innovations offered as a 
panacea for all our social and political ills' and 
suggesting that there is already too much law in 
this country and the greatest service that legis- 
lators could give the people would be to spend 
two years in repealing laws instead of creating 
more, Governor Emmet O'Neal, of Alabama, 
discussed 'Representative Government' before 
the members of the Cincinnati Metal Trades 
Association at the Business Men's Club last 
night. 

"The Governor did not mince words in his 
attack upon the three principles which are now 
prominently before the people of Ohio. He 
declared that the wisdom of our forefathers, 
w T ho made the constitution, was exemplified 
when they discarded the theories of direct legis- 
lation or a pure Democracy and established the 
country upon the basis of representative gov- 
ernment. Any constitutional provision that 
weakens or impairs the power and efficiency of 
either of the three co-ordinate departments of 
government, he holds, must necessarily weaken 
and impair the efficiency and harmony of the 
whole. 

" 'Unless this political heresy is checked/ 
he continued, 'the hosts of Socialism, re-enforced 
by selfish and time-serving politicians and re- 
cruited by all the elements of discontent, will 
soon direct their attacks against the Federal 
Government itself and gradually sap and under- 
mine the foundations of our free institutions.' ' 



JAN 3 1912 






One copy del. to Cat. Div. 



JAN 3 



By the Same Author — Ready in 




■■in 

022 020 504 



WHAT IS 
SOCIALISM ? 

An Exposition and a Criticism 

With Special Reference to Developments 
in America and England 



BY 



JAMES BOYLE 



JUST THE BOOK THE PUBLIC 
HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR ! 



Unique. 

Fair But Fearless. 

Popular But Authoritative. 

Condensed But Comprehensive. 

Historical But Thoroughly Up-To-Date. 

All "Schools" and "Phases" Impartially Treated. 

The Relation of the Labor Movement to Socialism. 

The Only Work Clearly Explaining What Socialism Really Is. 

Ample Reasons Given for the Author's Conclusion That Modern Socialism 
is Ethically Wrong and Economically Unsound and Impracticable. 



Published by the Shakespeare Press, 114-116 E. 28th St., New York 

PRICE $1.50 OF ALL BOOKSELLERS 



